Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Nature Reserves

Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be in a position to state his policy towards the transfer of the management of state-owned national nature reserves to voluntary bodies or the private sector.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The Nature Conservancy Council is conducting a review of its national nature reserve policy, which is due to be completed later this year. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 13 January, in which the Government's policy towards the ownership of land by non-departmental public bodies, including the NCC, was set out.

Mr. Lamond: As the NCC is funded by the Secretary of State, through the Treasury, is it not more likely to bend to his will, even though no voluntary organisations could possibly buy land from it? Is the Secretary of State not concerned that, last year alone, over 200 privately owned sites of special scientific interest were destroyed? Why does the Secretary of State not drop the daftest idea that he has yet had?

Mr. Ridley: I hope that, as the NCC is funded by the taxpayer, it will bend to the will of the taxpayer, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The loophole to which he referred was closed by legislation, as he should know.

Sir John Farr: Whether or not such rights are eventually transferred from the state to some other body, will my right hon. Friend make absolutely sure that public rights of access that already exist are preserved in future?

Mr. Ridley: Yes. A year ago, of the 160,000 hectares of national nature reserves only 43,000 were publicly owned. It is important that public rights of access should be preserved, and they are preserved under many different statutes.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State must be aware that important bodies, such as the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and others, have expressed grave reservations about the wisdom of the proposal to dispose of national sites and parts of our national heritage. If he is to ask such bodies — many of which manage such sites efficiently

and have a proven track record—to take responsibility for more of our national heritage, will he clearly and unequivocally provide the necessary funding for them to do so? If he does not do so, their job will simply be beyond them.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have quite got it right. Three quarters of the sites are in private ownership and are well looked after by private individuals at their own expense. If there is to be a supplement from public funds to the management of nature reserves, t can be done through the SSSI management agreements. That system is proceeding satisfactorily. However, I do not believe that the Nature Conservancy Council should be a way of achieving the nationalisation of land.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the state has no particular flair for managing nature reserves, any more than it has any particular gift for making motor cars? Will he not get better value for money out of genuine enthusiasts, anyway?

Mr. Ridley: I tend to agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. All that I have asked the NCC to do is to review its holdings to see whether, perhaps, some should be added to or substracted from them.

Rating Reform

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from members of the public (a) in support of the community charge and (b) opposed to the community charge.

Mr. Ridley: A summary of the 1,271 responses received by 31 October 1986, when the consultation period on the Green Paper ended, was placed in the Library on 15 December 1986. Since then my Department has received a large number of letters commenting on specific aspects of our proposals and requesting further information.

Mrs. Mahon: I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I believe that there is unanimous opposition from the whole spectrum of political thought in this country. In my constituency, the totally unjust tax will mean that an average household of three adults will pay £770 as against £322 now. How will low-income families find that extra £450?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady should put that question to Calderdale, because that council is currently spending about £83 per adult over the average for the country. It has time to reduce its costs and charges, because we have instituted a safety net that will limit the impact on Calderdale. The only opponent is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who does not think that Birmingham should contribute to Calderdale.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend inform the House how many of those letters said, "Can we please keep the rating system and, while we are about it, can we have the rating revaluation that would otherwise be necessary?"

Mr. Ridley: In the original consultation exercise the responses favouring abolition of domestic rates outnumbered those favouring retention by two to one. We have not analysed the letters after that, because they do not express clear opinions, but make limited points or ask questions.

Mr. Rees: Have any of the Secretary of State's correspondents asked whether it would be in order for the voters' list to be checked against the poll tax list in order to aid prosecution?

Mr. Ridley: Those matters have been discussed extensively upstairs. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the voters' list is a public document, and I have no doubt that community charge registration officers will see it, just as they see many other bits of evidence in arriving at registrations.

Mr. Marlow: With the greatest respect, was that not a rather silly and stupid question? Is not the weight of correspondence dependent on the activity of the lobbies? Is not the Government's responsibility to introduce policies that are effective and will be popular, not what people might think according to some biased question put in an opinion poll before a policy is introduced?

Mr. Ridley: We have received about 5,000 letters on this subject, and 35 million people will be liable to pay the community charge. The statisticians in the House will recognise that that is an insignificant proportion.

Mr. Rooker: Would it be a good idea if, even after the legislation has passed through the House on the conveyor belt after the guillotine, the Government put this issue to the people again, because of its substantial constitutional importance, to determine whether they would prefer the tax to be based in the way in which the Prime Minister originally said it would be on people's ability to pay?

Mr. Ridley: We put that issue to the people in June last year, and the hon. Gentleman was lucky to retain his seat.

Planning Policy

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has to reduce planning restrictions in towns and inner cities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): We have a substantial programme of work to simplify and improve the planning system. In particular, we have introduced provisions for simplified planning zones by which general permission can be given for specified types of development in an area.
Six urban development corporations have been established in England to adopt a single-minded approach to regeneration of inner-city areas. Three more have been announced. All have development control powers.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful for that reply, which clearly recognises the need to reduce planning restrictions in UDCs and special planning zones. Does my hon. Friend agree that the relaxation of planning restrictions should also be extended to towns and cities, such as Colne Valley and Huddersfield, which have no special status and where the planning restrictions do more than anything else to restrict and stifle the growth and prosperity of small businesses?

Mr. Trippier: That is why we have introduced 16 planning measures since the publication of the first White Paper, "Lifting the Burden", which contained a form of deregulation that will benefit the smaller firms to which my hon. Friend referred. The most notable of those measures is the extension to the general development order to promote exemptions from specific planning permission

and the modernisation of the use classes order. There is no lack of recognition in the DOE of the fact that the planning constraints that affect the growth and enterprise of small businesses obviously apply outside the inner-city areas and in Colne Valley also. The 16 measures that we have introduced will help that process.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did not the report "Faith in the City" detail most objectively with the polarisation, poverty and decline in physical conditions in the inner cities? Is not the embarrassing nature of that report one reason why the country is having to put up with the vindictive and malicious attacks on the Church of England from the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on that specific detail. I clearly remember reading "Faith in the City". We recognise some of the problems that the report has identified, and it is relatively easy for people to agree about the nature of the problems. However, the solutions suggested in the document were, in the main, unacceptable to the Government. The Government clearly recognise the problems of the inner cities. Our policy on that point has already been outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and it will be developed further. That policy reveals our concern for the inner cities, and we will develop the policy to regenerate them.

Mr. Thurnham: While removing unnecessary restrictions on businesses, will my hon. Friend pay close attention to the existence of historic covenants and the strength of public opinion that supports them?

Mr. Trippier: Yes, Sir.

Dr. Cunningham: One of the most controversial proposals for inner-city redevelopment at the moment relates to the Chelsea football ground at Stamford Bridge. What has been happening about that? Clearly something very odd, funny and questionable has been happening in the Department about the proposal. On 20 November the Minister for Housing and Planning, in a written answer, said that it "would not be justified" to call in the application. Although the council has followed the proper procedures by notifying the changes to the local plan in public notices, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), as recently as 11 February said that the Department had changed its mind and was calling the planning proposal in —[Interruption.] Yes, this is a very important matter and I intend to get it on the record.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Very long questions deprive Back Benchers of time.

Dr. Cunningham: Something very odd is going on in the Department of the Environment. There is a very nasty smell about it. The public, the people of Hammersmith and Fulham and the people at Chelsea football club and its supporters are entitled to know what is happening.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has made some disgraceful allegations and he deserves to be reprimanded for making them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on 11 February that the planning application was notified to him as a departure from the Greater London development plan on 8 January.

Dr. Cunningham: That is not true.

Mr. Trippier: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing that remark later.
I was obliged to consider the proposals afresh in the light of the council's view and the considerable number of representations received. In the light of the new information, my right hon. Friend concluded that the planning application should be called in for his decision following a local public inquiry. Obviously he cannot comment further at this stage, lest he prejudice his quasi-judicial function.

Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that public land hoarding, planning restrictions and the attitude of some local councils are still unduly restricting development in towns and cities where it is much needed? Does he agree that, as he tries to find ways through the red tape, he and the Department should reduce the over-rapid rate of growth in places such as Berkshire, which is picking up the tab for the failure in the cities?

Mr. Trippier: We have to try to achieve a balance in the Department of the Environment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier about development in the southern regions, which has certainly been higher than was previously expected, the Department must consider these matters with the planning authorities in reviewing development plans. However, I understand my hon. Friend's points.

Housing Mobility

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals to increase housing mobility amongst owner-occupiers; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): There have been a number of welcome changes which make it easier and cheaper for people to buy their own homes. These have included reductions in stamp duty, increased competition in conveyancing —which has led to a drop in charges—moves to speed up local authority searches, and an end to mortgage queues.

Mr. Lloyd: I am surprised at the Minister's response. Does he not recognise that, because the Government have allowed over-development to continue apace in the southeast, a terraced house there costs about three times as much as one in the north? That means that there is no possibility of mobility between the regions amongst owner-occupiers, as there is no real possibility of the south-east housing its own population.

Mr. Waldegrave: The argument is usually put the other way by northern Members—that they do not want a relaxation of planning controls in the south to bring down prices against the north. One of the comparative advantages of the north is its much cheaper prices. I remind the hon. Gentleman that last year there were a record number of first-time buyers—just under 700,000 — and many more first-time buyers even in the south than in 1979.

Mr. McCrindle: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the limitations on mobility applying to those who have engaged in the otherwise very desirable plans of part renting and part ownership? Has he any thoughts on how such people who may wish to move to another part of the country can be helped to do so?

Mr. Waldegrave: We certainly support such schemes, both in the commercial sector and when subsidised by the Housing Corporation. There has been an increase in such schemes, and we welcome it.

Mr. Soley: That is an incredibly complacent response. Does the Minister realise that people are having problems buying for the first time and in trading up and renting, all because of the mess into which the Government have got themselves over housing finance? When will the Government respond to the very sensible request from the Duke of Edinburgh's committee, the Church's report and every housing expert in the country? The Government must grasp the nettle of housing finance and introduce a sensible reform of the schemes for both renters and owners which makes it fairer for both groups within and between the two systems.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is rather extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should say that, when he spent a considerable time trying to prevent us from increasing the private rented market, one of the benefits of which would be to increase mobility. I remind him that the shift in the house-price-toearnings ratio in London and the south-east between 1979 and 1987 moved from only 4·66 times earnings to 4·80 times earnings. The catastrophe is not quite as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties that many purchasers encounter is the increasing length of time that it is taking the Land Registry office to bring forward recognised plans so that conveyancing can take place? Is it possible for his Department to have a word with the Land Registry office to find out where the blockage is, and whether the problem is shortage of staff or of accommodation? This is one of the great handicaps in conveyancing.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has made a good point, and I shall make the inquiries for which he has asked. Lord Templeman has recently introduced a Bill to open up the Land Registry, which is a sensible move and one that I believe will help.

Football (Membership Schemes)

Mr. Pendry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the president of the Football League to discuss the membership card scheme.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport is in regular contact with the president of the Football League. They will meet next on 21 March.

Mr. Pendry: When the Minister with responsibility for sport eventually skates back from the winter Olympic Games at Calgary, will the Secretary of State concentrate his junior Minister's mind less on the problems of Eddie the eagle and more on the larger problems affecting our national game? In particular, will he tell him that membership card schemes are not working, that they are not the answer to the hooligan problem, and that more flexibility is needed at club level? Following the recent cup tie between West Ham United and Queen's Park Rangers, the chief superintendent of police said that the membership card scheme caused the club problems. Will the Secretary of State ask the Minister to reconvene meetings with the football authorities to ensure that a solution is based on common sense?

Mr. Ridley: I would not dream of telling my hon. Friend what he should think or do. He is far more expert in these matters than I am. Let me include the hon. Gentleman in this general protestation of ignorance, because I have to tell him that in connection with the match between Queen's Park Rangers and West Ham on 30 January, the Metropolitan police said that the membership scheme was at fault. However, it was an all-ticket match. The problem stemmed from the circulation of forged tickets to West Ham supporters.

Mr. David Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is up to the Football League and the Football Association to put their house in order and that that is not the responsibility of the Government? We are pleased to see the police carrying out dawn raids, arresting people and seizing crossbows, truncheons, guns, pistols, and so on. If the Football League and the Football Association are not prepared to put their house in order, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would then be the responsibility of the Government to ensure that people are able to conduct their business on a Saturday afternoon in the way that they wish? May I remind my right hon. Friend that there is a membership scheme at a well-known football club and that there have been no arrests for 18 months —apart from the day when we allowed away supporters back?

Mr. Ridley: I congratulate that football club on the success of its membership scheme. I commend that scheme to all clubs. Obviously, we would like the football authorities put their own house in order and continue to improve their record on crowd control, violence and hooliganism. If that does not happen, it will be very difficult for the Government not to take action. I hope that we shall very soon see the action that my hon. Friend mentioned and would like to see.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Secretary of State convey to the Minister with responsibility for sport on his return from the winter Olympics the view that the best hope for professional football in Britain rests in the provision of attractive and comfortable facilities for spectators and, in particular, in the attraction once more of families as spectators? Will he suggest to the president of the Football League that football in general would benefit very much if clubs applied those policies, which are undoubtedly in the interests of the clubs and of the game itself?

Mr. Ridley: On his return, I shall certainly pass on to my hon. Friend what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I think that my hon. Friend and I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. What we are talking about is how to achieve it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, valuable as membership schemes are and could be, it would be even better if police and clubs did not admit to grounds anybody who was the worse for drink and if the clubs themselves did not sell drink to spectators? That would help enormously to overcome the very serious violence that continues at football matches.

Mr. Ridley: I am subject to correction, but I think that certain measures are already being taken in the direction that my hon. Friend suggests.

Housing Corporation

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairman of the Housing Corporation; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Waldegrave: I last met the chairman on 11 January, when we discussed the funding of housing co-operatives and the Housing Corporation's approved development programme for 1988–89.

Mr. Jones: When the hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the Housing Corporation, will he discuss with him the genuine concern of many housing associations about the implications of the Housing Bill? The Bill will mean that rents in the housing association sector will be raised to such levels that tenants will be paying half their incomes in rent. Will he also tell him that some low-paid tenants will be severely penalised and that some people will be deterred from working because of the substantial drop in income as a result of the loss of housing benefit?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right about this matter. The new Housing Corporation for Wales, which no doubt he will welcome, like the Housing Corporation in England, will be able to have different percentages of grant alongside private money. That will increase output and maintain rents at reasonable levels.

Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many of the excellent provisions of the Housing Bill will enhance the role of housing associations and give them a better opportunity to play their traditional role of housing people who are earning less than average wages?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The purpose of the new mixed-funding arrangements is to enable housing associations to carry out more of their traditional functions, helping the people whom they need to help by bringing in private money alongside public money.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Minister agree that that is not the view that all the housing association movement takes of the Secretary of State's legislation? The housing association movement, and everyone associated with housing associations, want a housing association tenancy established to protect the nature of the housing association movement—everyone except the Secretary of State and the person whom he appointed, his friend, Sir Hugh Cubitt, to run the Housing Corporation. Why will the Secretary of State not allow the Minister to accept what everybody wants—a housing association tenancy?

Mr. Waldegrave: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman has not got his facts right. My right hon. Friend did not appoint Sir Hugh Cubitt, who is an admirable chairman of the Housing Corporation.

Mr. Roberts: A mere technicality.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman says that the facts are a mere technicality. I agree. The point about a housing association tenancy will be best met by the proposal for a chartered social housing sector, which we discussed exhaustively and exhaustingly in Committee.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Did the Minister discuss with the chairman the paradox of Government policy that the implication of the Housing Bill for the Housing Corporation, with all the approval of new landlords, the


approval of landlords after the establishment of housing action trusts, the mixed funding and additional housing association funding, is that there will be a large centralised quango, much larger than any housing authority? Would not the best solution be to devolve the Housing Corporation's responsibilities regionally in England, as has been done in Wales, and democratise the Housing Corporation?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are effectively separate corporations in Scotland and Wales. I do not think that we would yet want to go down the route of dividing it up in England, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

Property Services Agency

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are directly employed by the Property Services Agency.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): A total of 22,235 non-industrial and industrial staff at 31 December 1987.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Would not those 22,000 people be better off in the private sector? If my hon. Friend has no plans to do that at an early date, will he comment on the more modest proposal to introduce commercial accounting and put the PSA on a trading fund basis? I believe that the PSA has had a report on this matter for about a year, so perhaps my hon. Friend is in a position to announce a conclusion?

Mr. Chope: Sadly, I am not in a position to announce a conclusion to the recommendation of the Deloitte report, to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope that we shall he able to put the PSA on a commercial footing with a trading fund.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister say what weight the PSA gives to local authority representations when they put forward projects such as building courthouses, as in the case of Bradford, where the local authority made representations to allow land for a rail link between two stations? That was refused on the arbitrary decision of the PSA. Does he think that the PSA should take into account the people who know best — the people in Bradford, who were elected to do the job?

Mr. Chope: In the court building programme, the PSA acts as the agent of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

Mr. Gow: Welcome though my hon. Friend's announcement is that the PSA will move on to the basis of a trading fund, will he understand that it does not go nearly far enough, and that the best service that could be rendered by his Department would be to bring the PSA, at the earliest possible moment, into the private sector?

Mr. Chope: I understand my hon. Friend's strong views, which are based on experience and knowledge of the PSA. For that reason, they are held in great respect.

Mr. Boyes: Is not the problem in the PSA the continuing reduction in staff—about 36 per cent. since 1979 — which has led to a growing backlog of £145 million worth of essential maintenance work? Because of low pay and conditions, particularly in London, there are problems of recruitment and retention of qualified staff to do that work, which has led to more expensive outside

contractors and consultants being brought in. How much is that costing, and would it not be cheaper for the taxpayer to pay the existing staff a decent and appropriate wage?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that staff numbers have reduced significantly in the Property Services Agency. There were 35,223 in 1979 and only 22,235 at the end of last year. But 85 per cent. of the maintenance work already goes out to private contractors. There is an expanded budget for maintenance work in the next financial year.

Development Corporations

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mini urban development corporations he proposes to set up to combat dereliction in inner-city areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend proposed four designations last December—three new urban development corporations in Bristol, Leeds and central Manchester, and the extension of the Black Country 1JDC area to parts of Wolverhampton.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's success in bringing derelict land back into use, increasing employment and improving the environment, is also giving skills to inner-city residents? What further plans has the Minister to designate areas as urban development corporations?

Mr. Trippier: I welcome and agree with what my hon. Friend said in the early part of his question. We have plans to designate other areas as UDCs.

Mr. Tony Banks: Before the Minister decides to set up more urban development corporations, will he tell us exactly what is going on with regard to the National Audit Office report on the London Docklands Development Corporation? There are strong rumours that the chief executive resigned after a very short period because he was concerned about the speculation and indeed, the misuse of resources in the Docklands area. In other words, there is a lot of fiddling going on in the area. Will the Minister tell us when he expects to get the report of the National Audit Office? Can he assure us that no fiddling is going on in the LDDC area?

Mr. Trippier: I resent strongly the allegations that the hon. Gentleman has made in his question. There are two points. First, the NAO report can neither be speeded up nor delayed by the Department of the Environment. The NAO is a law unto itself, so I can give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that there is no delay in that regard. It is nothing short of scurrilous that the hon. Gentleman should refer as he did to the resignation of the former chief executive of the LDDC, who resigned for purely personal and family reasons.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend will know that some cities have responded to the Government's lead by setting up, in effect, their own development corporations. Will my hon. Friend join me in offering every good wish and welcome to Mr. Michael Neale—recently adviser to LDDC — to Manchester and to Merseyside, as chief executive of Nottingham development enterprise? Will he join me in welcoming the initiative by Nottingham's Conservative city council?

Mr. Trippier: I am delighted to have the opportunity to endorse all that my hon. Friend has said. It is usually through the initiative of Conservative councils or Members of Parliament that such proposals for economic development are made.

Mr. Rooker: What about Birmingham?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asks, "What about Birmingham?" He may choose to remember or not to remember as the case may be, that the initiative known as Birmingham Heartlands was the initiative of the chamber of commerce.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that about Liverpool, because the regenerated areas in my city were developed by Liverpool city council, which is elected by the people of Liverpool. The Government have not given the support that they should to those areas. We do not need mini development corporations. What we need is Government assistance to the elected representatives who are trying to deal with the serious problems of those areas. It would be good if the Government were prepared to do that. The hon. Gentleman has been to Liverpool and seen what the council has done for the people. Is it not important to give aid to the local authorities and not to outside bodies that do not represent the people?

Mr. Trippier: What I have seen in Liverpool is that the city council, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, has plunged the city into enormous debt.

Mr. Heifer: The hon. Gentleman did.

Mr. Trippier: No. It seems miraculous to me and to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment that other Labour-controlled local authorities within Merseyside have managed successfully to balance their books. Furthermore, the major urban regeneration that has taken place in Liverpool, transforming the area and reducing unemployment, has been done principally by the Merseyside Development Corporation.

Out-of-town Shopping Centres

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the procedures for conducting public inquiries into planning applications for out-of-town shopping centres; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: We are developing ways of grouping applications and staging inquiries into such schemes in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. New rules of procedure for inquiries and a code of practice for major inquiries produced in response to the Select Committee will both be relevant to large out-of-town schemes.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of his inspectors is currently conducting an inquiry into a massive shopping development on the Prestwich hospital site in my constituency? Will he make it abundantly clear to that inspector that the plan is opposed by a vast number of my constituents both on environmental grounds and because it will have a terrible effect on existing shopping facilities?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has made his own view very clear to the inquiry and the inspector and has made representations to the Department, which have, of

course, been passed on to the inquiry. It would be wrong for me to comment on a proposal that is now the subject of a public inquiry.

Mr. Eastham: Is it not irresponsible for developers to build massive developments outside established cities and towns that destroy shopping inside the cities? Thousands of jobs will be lost as a consequence of the greed of those who build out-of-town shopping centres that are not required.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is not a matter of greed; it is a matter of the customers wanting them. The centres would not be built if there were not people who wanted to shop in them.

Mr. Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that the council of the London borough of Bromley and a number of local organisations are involved in considerable expenditure and a great deal of work in preparing their case for the public hearing in June of an appeal against an application for the development of an enormous leisure and shopping centre right in the middle of the green belt at Hewitt's farm? It would quite out of the question to allow this application, which would run contrary to all the policies laid down by my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Would it not save a great deal of time and trouble if my hon. Friend were to make it clear straight away that such an application for a development in the green belt land is simply not admissible?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend will probably know that we recently re-issued our advice on large shopping developments, in green belt land and made it clear that it was very unlikely that any such applications would be approved.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Minister aware that at the very centre of my constituency, called the Hillsborough centre, we now have major developments, with large numbers of small shops standing empty? Some of them are being taken over not by shopkeepers but by building societies and the like and people are writing to me about it. Is is not a fact that that is happening in cities everywhere and causing dereliction, and that people who have shopped in the centres of cities all their lives are now having to go outside to do their shopping? Is that sensible? It is inhuman.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not imagine that the building societies would be providing offices unless they were being used by customers. They must be serving someone. It is right that it is a material consideration in a planning inquiry or decision that the effects on local centres should be taken into account when new developments are being proposed.

Peak Park Planning Board

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce direct elections to the Peak park planning board.

Mr. Ridley: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Peak park is one of only two areas in the country in which planning decisions are finally reached by people other than directly elected representatives? Why should those of my constituents who live in the Peak park have to put up with this undemocratic treatment?

Mr. Ridley: I know well my hon. Friend's concern about the matter. In all the national parks, a sizeable proportion—about the same as that in the Peak district—of people who are not resident in the area serve on the parks committee. In my hon. Friend's case, of 34 members of the Peak board, 12 live in the park and a further six live within one mile of the boundary, including two councillors with electoral ward divisions lying partly within the park. I do not believe that it would be right to change the system of choosing national park authorities, because that would give rise to enormous complications in many areas.

Mr. McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that a great percentage of the county appointees live well outside the area of the park? This is causing grave concern for people who live in the national parks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) said, there is only one other area in the country where a person cannot serve on the planning authority if he is a resident and has been elected. This is very unfair. Will my right hon. Friend at least consider issuing new guidelines to local authorities about appointing people who live within the area of the national parks and have to abide by national park restrictions?

Mr. Ridley: I understand my hon. Friends' concern about this matter, but people must understand how difficult it would be to change the system of those who are elected and then appointed to the board. We have already requested local authorities to ensure as far as possible that they appoint people who live in or near the area.

Local Authorities (Contract Compliance)

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend the Local Government Bill to allow local authorities to use contract compliance to tackle sex discrimination and discrimination against people with disabilities.

Mr. Chope: No. Sir.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister has already conceded the principle of contract compliance in respect of racial discrimination because of the duties imposed on local authorities by section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 to promote equality of opportunity. I note that in an amendment made in the other place yesterday to the Local Government Bill the Minister has now been forced to accept the principle of contract compliance in respect of people with disabilities. Why, therefore, will he not accept the same principle in respect of discrimination on grounds of sex? Is the hon. Gentleman saying to the House that there is no discrimination against women in employment —if he is, he should look at the Benches around him—or is he saying that there is discrimination but Ministers do not care sufficiently about it to do anything?

Mr. Chope: We shall carefully consider the implications of the amendment approved yesterday in the other place. Local authorities are part of the enforcement processes only in relation to racial discrimination by virtue of section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. That is recognised in the Local Government Bill, and that is why that provision is dealt with differently from sex discrimination.

Mr. Marlow: Is my hon. Friend confident that the Government can devise a series of stock questions on

racial discrimination which will not undermine the main purposes of the Bill, which is to prevent political interference by local authorities — Labour local authorities—in proper commercial activities? If my hon. Friend is confident, perhaps he could let us into the secret.

Mr. Chope: I am confident about that. Indeed, some questions have been prepared and are the subject of consultation at the moment.

Dr. Cunningham: Why do the Government not accept the representations of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has made it clear that, in respect of discrimination against women in employment, it would like the Government to take exactly the same approach as they are taking under the Race Relations Act 1976? Should not the Government now accept the defeat in the House of Lords and make it clear that, in respect of people with disabilities, they will change the legislation accordingly?

Mr. Chope: Both this House and the other place have rejected the arguments of the Equal Opportunities Commission. If the commission decides, as a result of consultations on its document, to press my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which includes a section 71-type duty, the Government will give careful consideration to such a proposal.

Homelessness

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate for the number of homeless people in Bristol; and how many are under 21 years.

Mr. Ridley: Bristol city council's latest return to my Department showed that 343 households were accepted as homeless under the Homeless Persons Act in the period July to September 1987. The ages of homeless people are not reported.

Ms. Primarolo: Is the Minister aware that in Bristol not only is there the problem of homeless young people but it is estimated that more than 20,000 people are effectively homeless, 14,000 of them forced to live in accommodation that is legally considered to be unfit for human habitation? The Government's Housing Bill refuses to place on housing action trusts a legal duty to deal with homelessness. Will the Minister therefore agree to discuss again with Bristol city council its allocation of funds under the housing investment programme, with a view to giving more money to Bristol so that it can effectively tackle the problem of homelessness in the city?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady is unnecessarily critical of Bristol city council, which has done rather well in this respect. Of the 343 households that are homeless—not the thousands that she mentioned—only 76 were in bed and breakfast on 30 September last year. Their average stay was only 27 days. That is a good record, on which I congratulate the council.
As the hon. Lady seemed to want a housing action trust to be placed in Bristol, I shall certainly look into that possibility.

Housing Co-ownership Schemes

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the growth of housing co-ownership schemes.

Mr. Waldegrave: Co-ownership schemes can normally proceed without direct Government assistance, although my right hon. Friend is responsible for granting co-ownership societies entitlement to various tax reliefs if their rules meet the requirements of section 341 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that co-ownership schemes often provide the only route by which young couples on low incomes can achieve their desired form of housing—house purchase —especially in areas such as Bristol, where house prices have recently risen sharply? Will he do all that he can to encourage the provision of those schemes so that young couples have a chance to buy their own homes?

Mr. Waldegrave: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. A problem to do with a company which promotes such schemes and which is based in my constituency in Bristol has recently emerged. It has written to me about a technical problem to do with tax and we are trying to sort that out as quickly as we can.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister consider amending the present proposals in the Housing Bill to ensure that before any private or other landlords can make a bid for council blocks, streets or estates, tenants are given the opportunity of setting up a co-operative organisation to buy those properties for themselves, or for themselves with others?

Mr. Waldegrave: It will be open to tenants to do that, and I suspect that in many cases tenants will want to bring forward such schemes. When the Bill is passed, and following the publicity about what the proposals mean, which we shall ensure is put out, I hope that many tenants will come forward with such proposals.

Rent Arrears

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied with the performance of local authorities in reducing the level of their rent arrears.

Mr. Waldegrave: No, Sir.

Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the main, it is Labour local authorities which have large amounts of rent arrears, and which, by not collecting their rent arrears, often claim to the Government that they are short of money and are always asking the Government for more money? Would it not be better if they collected those rent arrears first and so had more money to spend?

Mr. Waldegrave: The facts speak for themselves. The 10 worst authorities, which account for a third of the total of nearly £200 million rent arrears, are Labour -controlled. Most of the top 20 are Labour. So I have to confirm what my hon. Friend has said.
There are, of course, many differences between Labour authorities. Why, for example, does Walsall, a Labour council, have rent arrears of about 13 per cent., whereas Bolton, also a Labour council, has 1·2 per cent.? The reason is that one is much better managed than the other.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that Oldham, a Labour council, was so fed up with trying to collect its arrears that it put the task out to private contractors on a commission basis? They soon gave up, because they could make no impression, either.

Mr. Waldegrave: I suspect that the position there, as in some of the London boroughs, had been out of control for so long that it was beyond anyone's capacity to put it right quickly.

Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to examine the records of the two local authorities in my constituency — Middlesbrough and Langbaurgh — and see how appalling Middlesbrough's record is compared with that of Langbaurgh? Middlesbrough is Labour-controlled and Langbaurgh has a hung council. Yet, in their turn, the Government treat Langbaurgh shabbily in the rate support grant and treat Middlesbrough as though they had too much money to give away. When the Government act in that way, how does it encourage local authorities to collect rents?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is no direct relationship between outstanding rents and rate support grant. Arrears of rent are, however, a consideration in HIP allocations.

Mr. Bell: I wish to correct the statement made by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) concerning Middlesbrough council. Will the Minister accept that Middlesbrough council runs services to its community, has rates and rent in proportion to those services and has a record second to none throughout the country, let alone the north-east?

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not get involved in a civil war at Langbaurgh, if I can help it. The House should agree that it is scandalous that there are authorities that have up to 38 per cent. of their collectable rent outstanding. That is evidence of incredibly bad management.

Mr. John Marshall: Is it not the duty of local authorities not to curry favour with a small minority of non-rent paying tenants, but rather to carry out their duties to all ratepayers and to the vast majority of tenants who pay their rents?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. Rent arrears are only one sign of bad management. Where there are rent arrears there are other symptoms of bad management, such as too many squatted properties and too many voids.

Mr. Soley: Creative statistics will not get the Minister out of this one. His Government have cut housing benefit, as he knows, seven times and will do so again in April. That means that a nurse will pay about 40 per cent. of her net salary before being entitled to housing benefit. They raised rents again by £1·60 yesterday. They have taken away all the benefits to the rented sector and wonder why it is collapsing. What right has the Minister to talk about choice for tenants in those circumstances? Why does he not tell the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who is so concerned about this, that his council is busy selling off an estate over the heads of the tenants, when they do not want their estate to be sold off? What sort of choice is that?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman wisely changes the subject as much as he has done because he is on weak ground on rents. He has not addressed himself to the question to which I would be interested to know the


answer. Why does Walsall do so much worse than Bolton? I do not believe that there is any difference in housing benefit between Walsall and Bolton. There are some badly managed councils, and, as the figures show, the great majority are Labour-controlled.

Rating Reform

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of people who will pay the poll tax.

Mr. Chope: We expect that 35 million adults in England will be subject to the personal community charge.

Mr. Canavan: Does that figure take account of the number of people who will not register and the number of people who are either unwilling or unable to pay the poll tax? In view of the statement on Monday by Mr. James Thomson, the regional assessor for Fife, that if a sufficient number of people refuse to register it would "choke up the works", and the helpful statement yesterday by the Prime Minister, who said that failure to register on the poll tax register will not in any way affect one's right to vote, does the Minister realise that many people, including myself, will initially refuse to register and pay, and will encourage as many people as possible to do likewise, so that we can scrap these vicious poll tax proposals?

Mr. Chope: The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Leader of the Opposition if his last remarks are to be taken seriously. Most people will register, and if they do not they will be subject to penalties, so it will not be worth their while not to register.

Mr. Forth: Is it not patently fair that people who are entitled to vote on the one hand, and to the services provided by the local authority on the other, should expect to pay a fair and reasonable share of the costs of these

services? Where a tax is the law of the land, is it not reasonable to expect people to pay that tax, and to face the penalties if they do not pay?

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about a community charge that will meet only one quarter of the total cost of local government expenditure. The remainder will be funded by business and by national taxpayers, and the one quarter that will be met by the community charge will not be met by an equal community charge paid by everybody. About 7 million people will be entitled to a rebate, so they will not have to pay the full community charge.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received over the poll tax.

Mr. Ridley: I refer to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

Mr. Winnick: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am in a genuine dilemma, in that I oppose this wholly unfair poll tax, yet realise that this crazy scheme will undoubtedly be one of the factors that will help to remove his Administration from office?

Mr. Ridley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's dilemma was that the Labour co-ordinating committee has stated:
When the local council wants to carry out a programme of service expansion local people will no longer be cushioned by increasing business rates and rate support grant. They will want to know that increased expenditure is well spent.
That is the view of the Labour party.

Mr. Dykes: Is it completely wise to be the only country in the world giving up some sort of property charge?

Mr. Ridley: I would never claim a monopoly of wisdom, and I am always interested in my hon. Friend's views.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on matters within my area of responsibility arising from the investigations carried out by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson.
In his statement to the House of 25 January, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland had concluded that, having considered all the facts and information ascertained and reported by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson, and having re-examined the original Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation files, the evidence did not warrant any further prosecutions in the two incidents in which charges of murder have already been brought, nor in the third incident at Ballynerry. He did, however, conclude that there was evidence of the commission of offences relating to perverting the course of justice, but further concluded, on grounds of public interest, that it would not be proper to institute any criminal proceedings. The question of further action therefore falls to be considered in the context of the question of disciplinary proceedings.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised the Chief Constable of the RUC of those offences in respect of which he concluded there was evidence. The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has today announced that he has invited the chief constable of Staffordshire, Mr. Charles Kelly, to consider whether disciplinary charges should be brought in the case of RUC officers of chief superintendent rank and below, and if so what charges would be appropriate.[Interruption.] Mr. Kelly has appointed one of his assistant chief constables to help him in this task.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has been pressing for this statement for a long time.

Mr. King: The work has already started. The Chief Constable of the RUC has told me of his concern that it should be completed without delay in the interests of all concerned. The Chief Constable has also confirmed to me that he considers that any charges brought should be heard by a chief constable of another force. I have made clear to him my concern for these disciplinary issues to be resolved as soon as possible.
Mr. Sampson also made observations on the role played by more senior officers. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland is the discipline authority for those ranks. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Philip Myers, has therefore informed the chairman of the police authority of these observations, and is making available relevant material for his attention. I have seen the chairman who has confirmed this position to me and that these matters will now be considered by the authority. I shall keep the House informed of further developments on these matters.
The circumstances surrounding and following the incidents in 1982 gave rise to concern about procedures, responsibilities and control within the RUC. In the light of Mr. Stalker's interim conclusions and of Mr. Sampson's further comments upon them, a special inspection into those matters was carried out by Mr. Charles McLachlan, one of Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary, and I

received his report on 25 January. I am grateful to him for the most thorough manner in which he carried out that task. I have since discussed his report with the Chief Constable.
I am most anxious that there should be a better public understanding of the two major issues involved. The McLachlan report deals with the procedures and practices that have been followed in police work in Northern Ireland arising out of anti-terrorist operations. The report essentially covers two areas: first, how the special branch, with its own crucially important and distinctive task, still remains an integral part of the overall force within the disciplines of mainstream policing. The House will be aware of the concerns expressed in 1982 that the special branch had become a "force within a force". The second issue is how to ensure that, notwithstanding security and other considerations, there is a proper procedure for the investigation of all serious incidents, and that full and accurate information is given to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Those questions go to the heart of the problems faced by a police force using the normal processes of the law while fighting a vicious and ruthless terrorist enemy. Intelligence is the lifeblood of that fight. Without it, the security forces are seriously handicapped. It is vital that it is protected. Moreover, knowledge of even the procedures used by special branch and other RUC officers will not only make their task still more difficult, but it will put lives at even greater risk. That is why the security forces are understandably and rightly so committed to protecting intelligence. But the lessons of those incidents show clearly that that desire must not operate outside effective accountability and control.
On the question of a force within a force, Mr. McLachlan's report makes it clear that, while the Stalker-Sampson inquiry rightly focused on the situation in 1982 and immediately thereafter, matters were substantially improved shortly afterwards. In 1983, at the request of the Chief Constable, a former very senior officer of the Security Service carried out a special review into certain aspects of special branch management and its relationship with the CID. His recommendations were implemented in full. The new rank of senior assistant chief constable was introduced for the RUC in 1984. Since then, both the special branch and CID have answered to the same senior assistant chief constable, so that their work has been fully co-ordinated.
Special branch operations must be conducted in secrecy, but they must not be carried out without the knowledge of the RUC senior command. Mr. McLachlan stresses that the regional assistant chief constables are now aware of the operations of special branch within their respective areas, and re-emphasises the importance of them continuing to monitor them. In addition, he makes a number of specific recommendations designed to ensure the highest standard in the selection and training of members of special branch, the prevention of overspecialisation, the encouragement of cross-posting both within the RUC and with other police forces and the further integration of the branch with the other parts of the force. In putting forward these recommendations, Mr. McLachlan pays a strong tribute to the present professionalism and standards of members of special branch, stressing the vital part they play in combating terrorism.
I now turn to the second major issue covered by Mr. McLachlan. This concerns the vital need that serious incidents are thoroughly investigated. At the heart of this is the point that the policies and practices of the RUC should in future reflect the paramountcy of the CID investigations, including the need for evidence to be preserved and for no obstacle to be placed in the way of questioning of suspects and witnesses.
Mr. McLachlan considers that the combined responsibility for both CID and special branch makes an important contribution to the proper handling of such inquiries. In addition, he now recommends that in controversial incidents involving RUC officers, the Chief Constable should consider whether an experienced assistant chief constable from another force should be appointed to lead the investigation; and that an experienced senior CID officer should attend any debriefing where firearms have been used by the RUC and people killed or injured. He also recommends improved arrangements at the scene of such incidents so that the forensic, pathology and photographic resources available are used to best effect.
In addition, however, to the specific recommendations of Mr. McLachlan in this area, as my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 25 January, the Director of Public Prosecutions was intending to discuss with the Chief Constable and deputy chief constable of the RUC safeguards to ensure that in the future facts and information given to the Director are in all respects full and accurate, whether or not any security interest is involved. The House will recognise that this is precisely the issue that I identified earlier and that has to be addressed. I can inform the House that a first meeting has already been held and that these discussions are now proceeding.
The House will note, therefore, the steps that have been taken and are now in progress to address these difficult issues. The Chief Constable has implemented in full the recommendations of the special review in 1983; further changes have been made subsequently, including in particular the control of both CID and special branch under a single senior officer; and the Chief Constable is now in discussion with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the necessary safeguards for full and accurate disclosures to the director. I can also tell the House that the Chief Constable has confirmed to me that he has accepted in principle all the recommendations of Mr. McLachlan.
There is one further particular aspect that I should mention. Shortly before one of the incidents in 1982, two RUC officers were given approval to cross the border into the Republic of Ireland. At the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference yesterday, I advised Irish Ministers of the full circumstances of the officers' presence in the Republic. I emphasised that the two officers who made the crossings were in plain clothes, were unarmed and were in an unmarked car. As the Chief Constable said in the statement which he issued on 7 April 1984, the crossings were made
for observation purposes only. There was no preplanned incursion, nor is there any deliberate or authorised system of incursion.
Nevertheless, it is fully accepted that it was wrong and regrettable that two RUC officers were permitted to enter the territory of the Republic unannounced as part of an on-going operation. It is the Government's intention that

this should not happen again and the Chief Constable for his part has undertaken to ensure that it does not; nor has it occurred since.
These incidents of 1982 and the subsequent events illustrate sharply the acutely difficult problems faced by a parliamentary democracy and the police service in combating the evil of terrorism. These incidents, in which six lives were lost and in which one person was seriously wounded, have already led to four policemen being prosecuted for murder, two more senior officers suspended, and the shadow of innuendo cast more widely over the RUC. Undoubtedly, serious mistakes were made which have damaged the reputation of the RUC.
This is a particular tragedy for a police force of the courage and professionalism of the RUC today, who have given ample recent evidence of their commitment to protecting the whole community from violence from whatever extreme it may come, and who fully deserve the tributes that Mr. Stalker, Mr. Sampson and Mr. McLachlan all pay to them. We owe it to them and to the whole community in Northern Ireland to ensure that these matters that I have described to the House today are dealt with promptly and correctly, that the wider lessons have been fully learnt, and the necessary changes effected to ensure that such problems can never happen again.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: This is perhaps one of the most serious and grave statements that we have heard about the British security forces in Northern Ireland while these present problems have been vexing the House over the past 20 years. We have also heard the most amazing rehabilitation of John Stalker. By what they have said, the Government have confirmed every item and every incident to which he refers in his biography and found it necessary to implement those reforms and ideas that he put forward.
The House will have listened with regret to what the Secretary of State said, because it is about an area of these islands where we are supposed to enforce the rule of law. In many ways, what the Secretary of State has said has sought to muddy the waters. Talking about the McLachlan report, he was confirming the Stalker-Sampson report. Indeed, we heard him attempting to staunch the wounds of an enormous casualty list that has emerged since the Attorney-General first made his statement.
The first casualty was the rule of law. "Be you ever so high," said Lord Denning, "the law is above you" —unless, of course, you are a police officer suspected of perverting the course of justice, conspiracy or obstructing a constable. It is perhaps well that the statue of justice is blind; otherwise it would see the scales weighed heavily against the innocent in Northern Ireland.
The second casualty is the Royal Ulster Constabulary —those brave and honourable men who held the line at the Tunnel in Portadown and throughout the marching seasons, who were the subject of abuse, and who saw their families threatened, being burnt out or bombed out from their own homes. All that they had won for the RUC and all the esteem that they had achieved is lost by the Attorney-General's statement and by what we have heard today.
The third casualty has been the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has been badly, but I hope not fatally, wounded. The spirit of trust that had grown between both Governments is badly damaged. The difficulties that the present Irish


Government had on the floor of Dail Eireann to get through extradition, the searches of nearly 50,000 houses in the Republic, and the pressure that was placed upon the Irish Government are all as good as lost by the Attorney-General's statement. The mounting confidence between the Gardai and the RUC and the co-operation at all levels have been put at risk by the Attorney-General and the Government by their actions.
The final casualty—

Hon. Members: Question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. McNamara.

Mr. McNamara: The final casualty is the Secretary of State. When I heard last week, I did not know whether to feel pity or contempt—pity for what had happened to him, or contempt for the fact that he allowed it to happen to him. All we have heard today is an attempt to salvage what he can from the mess with which he was left.
Let us look at what the statement actually says. New procedures and new structures of command will not help the situation at all unless there is confidence in the men who operate them and in their objectivity. There is no word about how we will prevent future Chinese parliaments, which we heard about before. There were rules and procedures before, but they did not stop the records being altered about the telephone calls that were made and about the movement of cars and operatives. We still do not know what was recorded on the tape in the hay shed and whether Macaulay was properly prosecuted. We do not know whether telephone calls went from Armagh to RUC headquarters when the outrageous lies were perpetrated and the cover-ups carried out.
The Secretary of State has rightly used the power to make this statement that was contained under the order that we passed last year, the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. In so far as one can be happy about the statement, we are happy that the Secretary of State has gone right through all the ranks of the RUC, not just the foot soldiers, but has referred to the policy authority.
May we know the time scale of the inquiries by the chief constables? May we know the ranks of the officers who have been referred to the police authority following Mr. Sampson's report? What were their ranks and how many have been referred for possible disciplinary proceedings? Will the Secretary of State explain the strange account of the incursion into the Republic, that
two RUC officers were given approval to cross the border",
but that
There was no preplanned incursion",
and that it was
part of an on-going operation.
What sort of gobbledegook is that, and what is it meant to mean?
At the beginning of my observations, I gave a list of the casualties of this affair. However, there is one victor from all this, which has scarcely said a word but has enjoyed immensely not a mere bone thrown at it by the Government, but the whole roast and the silver platter as well—that is the Provisional IRA. It is the only victor of this sad three weeks of accounts from the Government.

Mr. King: The only matter on which I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is, as I made clear in my statement, that I

regard these as very serious issues. The hon. Gentleman's comments referred to the rehabilitation of Mr. Stalker. Some people have been anxious to peddle various theories of conspiracy and have to sought to imply that the work that Mr. Stalker did was lost with his transfer and non-availability. I can confirm to the House that all Mr. Stalker's work was available to Mr. Sampson. I have seen the full copy of Mr. Stalker's draft final report on these matters, and the recommendations that fall within my area of responsibility. Mr. Sampson has commented on them, and likewise Mr. McLachlan had full access to the work that had been done.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the same team that had been working for Mr. Stalker carried on working with Mr. Sampson and was, in fact, reinforced in the sense that the information that he had garnered in the volumes of reports that he produced were all available to the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I advise the House that a number of recommendations flow directly from Mr. Stalker's work and recommendations.
I cannot answer specifically the hon. Gentleman's question about time scale because, of course, it will be for Mr. Kelly to determine what, if any, charges he recommends should be brought forward, and the time scale. However, I can advise the House that he has already started that work and that it is not in anybodys's interest that it should be delayed. I hope that we shall have an early resolution and understanding of whether there are to be charges and, if so, what they will be, so that the people concerned know where they stand.
In spite of the hon. Gentleman's dire warnings—as much as any hon. Member, I am under no illusions about the strength of feeling of the Irish Government and Irish Ministers—the House will be aware that the Taoiseach today moved a motion in the Dail and spoke to it, in which he made clear the determination to secure the achievements and goals of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I want to put on record on behalf of the Government, and I sincerely hope on behalf of all hon. Members, our warm recognition of the Taoiseach's firm commitment to the continuance of the closest cross-border security cooperation in the vital interests of all the people in the island of Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not Mr. Des O'Malley, TD, right to deprecate the use of security cooperation by other Irish politicians as what he calls a "diplomatic crowbar" to extract concessions from Her Majesty's Government? May we have an end to these apologies for border crossings by members of the security forces? Will the Government make members of the Garda Siochana, the Irish Army and the Irish air corps welcome if they want to cross the border to our side in pursuit of the common enemy?

Mr. King: With the obvious exception of the extremist political groups, I am not aware of any party in the Republic which advocates the discontinuance of cross-border security co-operation. Certainly in his speech to the Dail today the Taoiseach made it clear that
the protection of the security of this State,"—
the Republic—
and the protection, to the utmost of our ability, of the interests and security of all the people of Northern Ireland … dictate cross-border co-operation. It is obviously in the interest of both communities that this co-operation should be as effective as possible.


The Taoiseach said that in the Dail this morning. I welcome those comments and I make absolutely clear the British Government's commitment to the closest cooperation.
I am glad to see the strong support that the Taoiseach is receiving from the leaders of other constitutional parties in the Dail. I am encouraged by that, as we are all aware that difficult issues are involved and very strong emotions have been stirred. I have listened to what my hon. Friend has said. We are determined to achieve the closest cooperation. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is much interchange and a close relationship between the Garda and the RUC. I stand by the statement that I made on the matter of the particular incursion.

Mr. James Molyneaux: While these police officers are being offered up as sacrifices, will equally effective action be taken against those who actually made the crucial decisions, whether at the level of the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI5 or certain other bodies perhaps at a slightly higher level?
Is that not vitally essential, particularly in the light of the comments made by the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who seemed very reluctant to tread on that ground?

Mr. King: If I understand the question correctly, the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I that those are not matters for me.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this very hour a gallant young 23-year-old lance-corporal of the Ulster Defence Regiment, Alan Johnson of Kilkeel, is being buried? Is he not also aware that nothing that he has said at the Dispatch Box today will give any comfort to the mourners at that funeral? Will he take that on board and think of those who are suffering as a result of an officially declared shoot-to-kill policy of the sectarian Irish Republican Army? Will he now do what he did not do in his statement and tell the House that the four police officers were cleared of the charge in the court of law? Why did he not tell the House, when he was talking about their being brought to court, that they were cleared?
Will the Secretary of State also tell us that, now that discipline is to be applied in the ranks of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, similar measures should be taken in the ranks of MI5, and should reach to the top of MI5, the Prime Minister's own office and the Prime Minister herself, who is in charge of the security arrangements? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that anyone in Northern Ireland will be bluffed by what he has said about Charles Haughey today? I listened to the debate in the Dail. Charles Haughey made it clear that extradition had been stopped, and would be stopped until such time as he and his Government got their act together.
Was not the Anglo-Irish Agreement sold on the basis that we would have extradition? Now Mr. Haughey has told us that we shall have none whatever. Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to admit that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has failed? Is it not his duty to institute immediate talks with all parties concerned for a new and viable agreement — an alternative to the present agreement—in which the majority of the people of Northern Ireland can take part, and which they can support? Is that not the best way forward?

Mr. King: Of course I am aware of the appalling and savage murder of the UDR lance-corporal Alan Johnson in Kilkeel. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, Lance-Corporal Johnson is sadly another in the list of victims in the continued assault on democracy — the terrorist campaign that Northern Ireland has had to endure. What I have said today is relevant because I know that the best hope of ensuring that we avoid such killings in the future is by obtaining the fullest commitment of everyone in the island of Ireland to the defeat of terrorism. That is why close co-operation with the Irish Republic is in the interests of all in the Province.
With respect, what the hon. Gentleman said about extradition is not correct. The Taoiseach made clear his concern that extradition should operate effectively, and stressed that it was necessary for it to work within the terms of the new Act that the Dail passed recently. I made it clear to Irish Ministers that I hope that it is possible to resolve the problem. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is anxious to find out whether it can be resolved on the technical basis of the provision of adequate facts for the Irish Attorney-General, so that extradition can operate effectively. But, far from saying that extradition had been stopped, the Taoiseach made it very clear in his speech today that he wished to see it operating effectively, and that it was in the interests of the Republic as well as those of the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Hume: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the good faith of the Irish Government in co-operation did not begin today, that they have acted in good faith since they came to office—particularly, as the results show, in security co-operation? Will he also acknowledge that the trust and confidence on which such co-operation should be based has been dealt a very damaging blow by the amazing statement of the Attorney-General, which seemed to suggest that certain people are above the rule of law and that the rule of law is transcended by national security? Has he any plans or proposals for steps to undo the damage done to that essential trust?

Mr. King: Of course, I know very well the strength of feeling on those issues. The Irish Government have ma de clear to me their views both on the Attorney-General's statement and on the judgment on the Birmingham six, although one of those issues is not my responsibility.
Having said that, I recognise that, in certain respects, we are not able to meet the Irish concerns. The Taoiseach referred to an impasse; however, I noted that in his speech today he was careful to stress that there was not an impasse right across the board in Anglo-Irish relations, but only in respect of those issues.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, there was, in a sense, something of an impasse for us over extradition arrangements, which were not exactly as we would have wished. But, having argued our case very strongly, we eventually had to decide that the Irish Government were sovereign in that regard, and they made their decision. The Attorney-General has his responsibilities—very clear responsibilities—and, with integrity, he made his decisions. Ultimately, such decisions must be made. Then we have to see how it is possible to deal with the lack of confidence or other problems that may flow from those decisions.
In this instance, we have made it clear that we do not like the extradition arrangements. They raise additional


problems. Having said that, however, we will try to make them work. That must be the spirit in which we approach the problem. As the longest-serving member of the Anglo-Irish Conference on either side, I believe passionately that we should thank God that we have got a mechanism that enables us to sit down and argue out difficult issues, instead of engaging in megaphone diplomacy on either side of the Irish sea.

Mr. Julian Amery: While I welcome very warmly my right hon. Friend's commitment to continuing co-operation with the Republic in the struggle against the IRA, does he not agree that such cooperation requires some flexibility in respect of the border —a border that is crossed, I understand, by hundreds if not thousands of civilians every day? Was it really necessary to apologise for our two policemen having crossed the border in plain clothes for observation purposes? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that flexibility between ourselves and the Republic will allow policemen from the Garda and the RUC to continue flexible co-operation? As I understood it, my right hon. Friend's statement contained an assurance that we would not do it again.

Mr. King: I made a very clear statement, which I have also made to the Irish Government. I recognise my right hon. Friend's close interest in these matters. However, we now have the best opportunity of really close co-operation with the Irish. We can only take the greatest satisfaction in the achievements so far. My right hon. Friend will remember the substantial arms find on Five Finger beach in Donegal. Just imagine the terror and carnage that would have occurred if those weapons had become available within Northern Ireland.
How are the benefits of co-operation to be achieved? The RUC, in which I have the fullest confidence, recognises the need for an understanding with the Garda. There are sensitivities on the Irish side, as there are on our side. What I said about the incursion is, I think, correct. It is necessary to make the position clear, because I also believe that there are huge benefits to be gained from sensible co-operation, without our trying to work in ways that affect too keenly some of the sensitivities on the Irish side.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Secretary of State accept that neither a debate in the House nor internal disciplinary inquiries within the RUC can get to the heart of what was a mistaken policy, which was clearly being pursued by sections of the police and security forces in the Province at the time, and which led to the murder of civilians? That is the key issue.
The right hon. Gentleman referred in the opening paragraph of his statement to areas within his responsibility. Will he be more specific than he was in his reply to the leader of the Official Unionists, and make it clear that that area does not include the activity of the security services and their relationship with special branch? That is the area for which the Secretary of State cannot answer to the House.
Following the meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) had on Monday with Chief Constable Hermon, we certainly agree with the sentence in the statement in which the Secretary

of State talks about it being undesirable that the "shadow of innuendo" should hang over the RUC itself. Our concern is that his statement will not lift that shadow. Does he accept that it is not in the national interest that a sour and hostile atmosphere should exist either between the Republic of Ireland and ourselves or between the two communities in Northern Ireland, because it is in precisely that atmosphere that the IRA flourishes?
Therefore, will he accept that nothing less will do than the establishment of a Select Committee of the House with the capability of inquiring into these matters and the oversight of the security services? If for security reasons it has to be a Committee of Privy Councillors, so be it. It is surely not good enough that the Congress of the United States and most of the major European democracies have such accountability while we do not. Will he see that such an inquiry is established without delay?

Mr. King: Certainly, of course I am aware of and deeply regret the difficulties and problems that this has posed for the RUC. The events of 1982 continue to haunt the RUC. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) paid tribute to just one of the incidents in which the RUC was involved — the protection of Nationalists in Portadown and elsewhere. That is only one of a whole range of activities that involve protecting the community from terrorist attacks from whichever side they come. The RUC have also been involved in seizures of arms from both sides of the community. We have recently seen arms seizures from extremists on both sides. Mr. Sampson, Mr. Stalker and Mr. McLachlan have all expressed their admiration for the present-day RUC and its excellent work. However, this ghost from all those years ago has come back to haunt the RUC, and I greatly regret that.
One point was incorrect. These events did not lead to the murder of individuals in the sense that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North put it. It is important to remind the House in connection with the very unsatisfactory phrase "shoot to kill" that the hon. Gentleman used that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said
that … no evidence has been disclosed of any offence—such as incitement to murder—such as would be comprised in what has been loosely called a shoot-to-kill policy."—[Official Report, 25 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 24.]
We are concerned here with the key issues that I sought to put before the House; the perversion of the course of justice has to do with the issues of the subsequent investigation and those aspects.
We have had a report by a chief constable that runs to some 17 volumes of criminal investigation. That was the most thorough investigation that could have been carried out, and Mr. Stalker interviewed some 300 police officers, some of them undercover and secret surveillance men. There were 600 written statements from policemen, forensic scientists, doctors, pathologists and relatives of the dead men. That is the depth of that investigation, and all that information was available to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. In a democracy where sensitive security issues are involved, in the end matters in his area must be the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I must be responsible as Secretary of State. In the final analysis, we are accountable to the House.

Mr. James Kilfedder: All decent people here and in Northern Ireland, and I would say elsewhere,


will be delighted to pay tribute to the RUC for its courage, fairness and professionalism. That force is facing an evil and sophisticated terrorist organisation that will take comfort from every word of criticism that is uttered today against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a force that has lost so many gallant officers in order to defend the people of Northern Ireland. We should try to support the security forces in Northern Ireland. Nobody is attacking or setting up committees of inquiry to inquire into the activities of the IRA and the way in which it murders and mutilates innocent people.
Is it now possible after a sustained campaign in the media and from Dublin for the suspended police officers to obtain a fair, unprejudiced disciplinary hearing? I and many people in Northern Ireland fear that they they will be sacrificed in order to please a Republican element.
Finally, may I ask the Secretary of State about the penultimate paragraph in his statement about a minor incident that took place six years ago? Was an apology deliberately included in that statement as a result of the meeting of the Anglo-Eire Conference yesterday, when Dublin demanded that further criticism should be made of the RUC? This is strange, because when a Dublin Minister visited Newry last week he demanded that a British Army observation post should be demolished. Who is fighting the enemy?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman asked about the suspended officers. I have made clear, and I think it is right, that the Chief Constable decided that these matters should be decided by independent chief constables from other police forces. I am sure that that is right, and I think that it is in the interests of any officers who may find themselves facing any disciplinary charges that these matters should be dealt with as speedily as possible. I think that the whole House will understand that.
In the case of the report that I gave the House about the incursion, as I had given information to the Irish Government about the presence on their territory and in their jurisdiction of RUC officers in the course of an operation, I thought it right to report that to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask for briefer questions please? We have a very heavy day before us and I have had great pressure from hon. Members who wish to speak in a subsequent debate.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State has spoken about serious mistakes in a force in which I still have very many friends, even after the many years since I was in the Province. I agree that those mistakes have to be corrected because, unlike the IRA and all the other paramilitary organisations, the RUC is our responsibility. Does he agree that, if we concern ourselves with those matters, we are in no sense condoning the shoot-to-kill and the bomb-to-kill policies of the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland? Is it not now appropriate for us to debate the first part of the Secretary of State's statement—not today but shortly? We tend to forget the security situation in Northern Ireland in a way that the Secretary of State cannot. We ought to discuss it and his plans for reorganisation.
I was surprised at one answer that the Secretary of State gave the leader of the Official Unionists, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), when he

seemed to indicate that as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland he had no responsibility for the other security organisations working in the Province. That was not the way I operated and that matter ought to be cleared up. I should like to ask the Secretary of State a number of brief questions to which we ought to know the answers Under what Act is the Kelly inquiry instituted? I ask that question because my investigations this morning show that, if it is the 1970 Act, the public interest comes into it, as it came into the Attorney-General's statement the other day.
If there are disciplinary charges on very serious issues, what representation will be available to the police officers concerned, and will they have the right of appeal? These are important issues that were considered for open court but it was decided not to do that. The men that have been brought to my notice feel very strongly about this. It is being said, "Is the Secretary of State aware that if it is in the public interest that Mr. Stalker can print his views of what went on, surely these policemen have the right equally to make public their views on the same matter."

Mr. King: I very much appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. As a predecessor of mine, he is familiar with these issues. As he knows, the question of a debate is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will have heard what he said. I note that a draft order under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act is among the remaining Orders of the Day, and I hope that it will be debated shortly.
I understand that, following the introduction of new regulations, police officers facing disciplinary charges will be able to be legally represented. That is my present understanding of the matter, and I shall inform the House if that is not correct. As to the other questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks, I cannot add further to the answers that I have given.

Rev. William McCrea: In his statement today, the Secretary of State has brought no encouragement to the people of Northern Ireland. Will he accept that over the past months the majority of the population have been sickened by the manner in which the RUC, which obeyed its orders and carried out its duty, has been hounded to please a nest of Republican vipers? Will he accept that the RUC deserves the support of the House when carrying out its difficult duty facing a terrorist organisation, the IRA, which has brutally murdered its members and which continues to destroy young lives and homes in the Province?
Does the Secretary of State agree that it would assist the debate if most of the Opposition Members who have spoken, other than the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who set himself apart from them in his remarks, had used their verbal powers to condemn the murderous scum of the IRA, which is bringing turmoil to the country, instead of using their verbal power against the Royal Ulster Constabulaory, which has suffered so much during those years of turmoil? Does the Secretary of State agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley), the leader of my party, stated a fact — that the four members of the RUC who were brought to court were cleared? Are they to be part of the disciplinary procedure, or will the court's decision stand?

Mr. King: As to the hon. Gentleman's last point—I apologise to the hon. Member for Antrim, North, whom


I did not address—it is correct to say that those four policemen were acquitted. I cannot go further as to against whom criminal charges may be brought. That is entirely a matter for Mr. Kelly and his colleague; rightly, I am not privy to those matters.
It is precisely to defeat the evil of the IRA, the INLA and other extremist organisations, from whichever side they come, that we must ensure that we achieve the highest level of support throughout the community for the work of the security forces and the RUC. We are entitled to expect the highest standards, which is why, when those high standards are not achieved and mistakes are made, they must be addressed. That is what I have sought to do in my statement today.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that many people will see his statement as a damning indictment of the leadership and direction of the RUC? Does he further agree that public confidence will not be restored, or the damage done to the process of justice ameliorated, unless the Chief Constable, assistant chief constable and deputy chief constable whom Mr. Stalker wanted to interview under criminal caution are removed from their positions in Northern Ireland?
Given that this police service required the involvement of people ranging from Sir Arthur Young, Sir Kenneth Newman, Chief Constable Drury, John Stalker, Colin Sampson, Mr. Charles McLachlan, Chief Constable Charles Kelly and other police officers who were brought over to investigate other instances, will the right hon. Gentleman further agree that it is time that there was a Chief Constable in charge of the RUC who could rule his force properly and with integrity, who would not need the involvement of policemen from this side of the Irish Sea?

Mr. King: When I listen to the hon. Gentleman, I sometimes get the impression that he is trying to imply that the events that we are discussing have occurred in the past year. He knows that these events occurred in 1982. He said that my statement is a damning indictment of the current leadership. I precisely paid tribute, as did Mr. Stalker, Mr. Sampson and Mr. McLachlan, to the changes and improvements that have been made and to the professionalism and integrity of the current RUC.
To be fair, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the number of times that hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland have had reason to be grateful for the efforts of the RUC. I know of occasions when he has asked for help because he was worried about intimidation and invasions by thugs of parts of his constituency. The RUC has turned out on such occasions to protect people regardless of their religion or background.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the double jeopardy rule—which I, among others, negotiated with a Labour Home Secretary — the evidence brought against the police officers charged with murder, but who have been found innocent, will not be admissible for disciplinary purposes?
Will he acknowledge that Mr. Stalker, whatever else he did, was naive in failing to realise that undercover stories are sometimes essential to protect sources in intelligence gathering? As my right hon. Friend was present at St.

Anne's cathedral, when a memorial to 252 murdered police officers was unveiled, will he confirm that he is at one with the Primate of all Ireland, who said.
Without the RUC, civilised life in this province would be impossible"?
Should we not consider that as the heart of the matter?

Mr. King: I believe that my hon. Friend is correct in his point about double jeopardy, but I should like to check that matter, and if I am not correct I shall so advise him.
In his second point, my hon. Friend mentioned undercover stories. The purpose of my statement — I sought to be franker with the House than has hitherto been the case with this matter—is to explain a dilemma. In the protection of sources of intelligence lives are at risk, and people seek to protect them in any way available to them, for the highest and most principled of purposes.
Having said that, there must come a time when that protection and those undercover stories are subject to accountability. My hon. Friend, who knows a lot about this matter, will have listened carefully to what I said about discussions between the DPP and the Chief Constable. At the end of the day, the DPP must be given full and accurate information. I think that I have said enough for the House to understand why some of these problems arose.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to that moving occasion at which a memorial to 250 members of the RUC was unveiled — the window that the Police Federation has had installed. It was the clearest reminder of what the archbishop said: that the whole community of Northern Ireland owes a massive debt to the members of the RUC, the UDR—both full-time and part-time — the security forces and all those in public positions, such as judges, who have helped to maintain civilised life in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Is the Secretary of State aware that the three incidents that were investigated occurred in what was my constituency? I support the Secretary of State in asking people to understand the circumstances of six years ago. Is the House aware that, in the previous 11 years, five of the six men who were shot and their associates — this is not intended in any way to excuse any wrongdoing—had murdered 222 people in my constituency, 42 of whom were policemen, 35 of whom were UDR men, over 20 of whom were innocent Catholics and the rest were regular soldiers —constituents of hon. Members—and Protestants? I ask hon. Members to understand that background, not to excuse wrongdoing but so that they may know the circumstances in which these people were operating.
May I ask the Secretary of State two simple questions? Are we to take it from the statement about over-specialisation that department E4A is being abolished? If so, can he tell us at what political level it was approved that members of E4A should be trained in speed, aggression and fire power by the SAS; and, having been trained, what were they expected to do? Secondly, can he tell us whether he uncovered the person in the security services, in his office or in the RUC who advised the special branch of the RUC to use the cover of the Official Secrets Act 1911 to convey to the men on the ground that national security was the basis upon which they could defend their wrongdoing? Has the Secretary of State uncovered the person who gave that advice, or does he expect us to believe that a middle-ranking police officer came up with the idea?

Mr. King: I think the whole House will have noted the opening remarks of the hon. Member and what occurred in his constituency, and will have gained an understanding of some of the pressures and appalling challenges that were faced by people in his constituency. The House will have noted that he was careful, correctly, to make it clear that in no sense was he condoning wrongdoing. I understand that five of the people who were killed were acknowledged members of terrorist groups—of course, that in no way condones any wrongdoing that may have occurred; the hon. Member put that on the record — and my understanding is that that information is correct.
The hon. Member was right to say that we must ensure that, if there was wrongdoing, there is a proper and full investigation. I cannot comment on any of the matters that he raised about E4A. I shall certainly not comment on the last point the hon. Member raised.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Mr. Stalker claims that he was forced off the inquiry and out of office because of pressure by Ministers of the Crown. Will my right hon. Friend deny this? If so, will he make it clear to Mr. Stalker that this contemptible behaviour of touting his allegations and his book from town hall to town hall plays into the hands of the men of violence?

Mr. King: I have seen some suggestions; I do not think there has been a specific statement by Mr. Stalker. If there is uncertainty in the House, I am more than ready to make it clear that I am unaware of any truth in these suggestions.
From my point of view, the events in Manchester that led to the non-availability of Mr. Stalker were extremely inconvenient in relation to Northern Ireland. It meant greater delay and an interruption of the process of the inquiry. One did not need a crystal ball to know that there would be all the allegations that people have made about cover-up or conspiracy. It was profoundly annoying. We wanted an early resolution of the matter, but I constantly had to disappoint the House because of the interruptions and delays those problems caused.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does not the Secretary of State consider that the behaviour of Mr. Stalker was reprehensible in so far as he was, during his investigation and since his removal from the inquiry, engaged in a cynical exercise of self-promotion? Was Stalker being professional when, from May 1985, he communicated both his position and his prejudices on the issue on an almost daily basis to Michael Unger, the editor of the Manchester Evening News? Is it not a fact that he has, since then, turned the inquiry into a drama, an entertainment or even a farce, where fact cannot be differentiated from fiction?
Can we expect members of the RUC to get justice from something that he has trailed through the public domain for so long? Are the heads of middle-ranking officers now to be offered on a platter to placate Dublin's uncooperative and duplicitous politicians? When do the Government intend to stop toadying to terrorists and their apologists and remember, for example, the 195 people who have died in my constituency, with 168 of those cases remaining unsolved? When do the Government intend to remember the 150 people who have died in an escalating death toll since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed? Indeed, when do they intend to remember the 2,625 people who have died from terrorist violence?

Mr. King: On the hon. Member's first point, I have had the opportunity to study Mr. Stalker's draft final report on the matters within my responsibility. In that there is much excellent work. It is very unfortunate that there was, as everyone in Northern Ireland knew, a lack of confidence between Mr. Stalker and the RUC. I know that part of that undoubtedly derived from a feeling, justified or not, that an awful lot of the proceedings in Northern Ireland seemed to be appearing regularly in press bulletins. If the extracts of Mr. Unger's diary are correct, I find it difficult to understand how that could properly have taken place. I am concerned with the substance of the inquiry and to see what lessons are learnt from it.
In respect of the pursuit of terrorism, I believe more firmly than ever in my time as Secretary of State that the best hope for the end of terrorism is the carrying forward of the co-operation with the Irish Government which is starting to develop in cross-border security, as we have seen in the recent searches.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to bear in mind, as I have already said, that a very important debate on ILEA is to follow and that there is great pressure to take part in it. I will allow questions on the statement for a further 10 minutes, but I propose to give preference to hon. Members who were not called on the statement on a broadly similar subject on Monday 25 January.

Mr. W. Benyon: Accepting the very nature of the alleged offences, and accepting everything that my right hon. Friend has announced today, but remembering that all these things happened way back in 1982, may I ask whether it is not essential to carry the Government in Dublin with us because, without their active co-operation, there is not a cat in hell's chance of defeating terrorism?

Mr. King: I certainly attach the greatest importance to that. I think I have given testament to that. The hours that I have spent in discussion with the Irish Government on these serious issues are evidence of that.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Cannot the Secretary of State, setting aside matters relating to 1982 which are under consideration, pay tribute without apology to the service given by the RUC and the security forces to all the citizens in Northern Ireland? Will he assure the House that RUC officers who carried out operational directions and anti-terrorist duties will not be sacrificed and persecuted to satisfy high-level, anti-Unionist agitation through the media, Republican prejudice and unwarranted interference from the Irish Republic and the representatives of that foreign Government? Will he agree that the shootand-kill policy and the bomb-and-murder campaign of the IRA, which have resulted in 252 police officers being murdered, the majority of which murders are unsolved, make it necessary in considering any future disciplinary action to take account of the circumstances that prevailed in 1982?

Mr. King: I have already paid clear tribute to the RUC, as have other right hon. and hon. Members. As to the position of anyone who may face disciplinary charges, I think the integrity of the chief constables who will be responsible for both stages of that process is the firmest assurance on the point the hon. Member makes.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not his wise and resolute statement this afternoon but the response of the Opposition Front Bench —very ill-judged—that will give encouragement to the IRA? Will my right hon. Friend consider again the answers that he gave earlier this afternoon? Does he recall that the preamble to the Anglo-Irish Agreement refers to the need for real co-operation between friendly neighbouring states to defeat terrorism? Is my right hon. Friend really telling the House that if members of the Garda — whether armed or unarmed, in uniform or in civilian clothes—should cross into the north in pursuit of terrorists he would lodge a complaint with Dublin?

Mr. King: On my hon. Friend's opening remarks, I found the response of the Opposition deeply disappointing and I understand entirely why my hon. Friend commented as he did. On the question of a member of the Garda crossing the border in pursuit of such an operation, it is absolutely essential that there is trust and understanding between the RUC and the Garda. What is not acceptable on either side is for these things to happen without warning and without co-operation. That must be understood on both sides.

Mr. Peter Archer: Will the Secretary of State now accept what some of us tried to say at the outset —that one cover-up leads inexorably to the next? Mr. Stalker finds senior police officers concealing the truth, so he in turn has to be silenced. If the boil is now finally to be lanced, would it not have been wiser, in the interests of everyone, to appoint investigators from outside the police force? Can the Secretary of State tell us which of the reports that he has mentioned this afternoon will be made public?

Mr. King: I have already made it clear to the House that the reports will not be published, for the reason that they contain a considerable amount of extremely sensitive information. What I have tried to do in my statement is to give the House the clearest picture of what is covered by the recommendations and the particular aspects of concern.
On the idea of Mr. Stalker being silenced, I sought to address that point. In the one independent study of this matter that I have seen, the conclusion of the writer is that there was no evidence whatever of an involvement in that way. The matters that arose in Manchester, as I said, I bitterly regret because they were extremely inconvenient.

Sir John Farr: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I find it difficult to support what he has had to say and to share his confidence that what he is doing will be anything other than detrimental to the RUC, which the House holds in great esteem? It seems to some Conservative Members not only that he is taking a step that will damage the RUC but that possibly prosecutions should be against people of a higher rank. On cross-border incursions, surely my right hon. Friend does not suggest that in a country divided by a border, in which families are divided by a border, it is anything other than good that plain-clothes policemen, off duty or on duty, should cross from south to north and from north to south as rapidly and frequently as possible.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend referred to the action that I am taking. The disciplinary matters are for the Chief Constable, and they are actions that he is taking. The

police authority is taking action, and it has clear responsibilities for the RUC and for the morale and good standing of the RUC. On my other announcements, my hon. Friend will have noted that Mr. McLachlan's recommendations have all been accepted in principle by the Chief Constable. They are working in the interests of a stronger and improved RUC in those respects.
I have nothing to add to my point about incursions.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: May I ask the Secretary of State a simple question? In view of the value set by Mr. McLachlan on the preservation of evidence — endorsed by the Secretary of State in his statement—was Mr. McLachlan made aware of what happened to the crucial tape of the events in the hay shed in which the boy Tighe was murdered in 1982?

Mr. King: Those matters have to do with the criminal investigation and not with the structure and organisation of the RUC, and that is the view that Mr. McLachlan took.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: A 16-year old boy was murdered—possibly murdered, I should say—the policemen lied to the court, and there is evidence of perversion of the course of justice. The Chief Constable — if we are to believe Mr. Stalker — for 18 months delayed the inquiry in respect of the tape and then told him that the transcript of the tape was destroyed. At the end of the day, what I cannot understand is how that can reflect well on British justice and the rule of law. Are not decisions such as this, which fudge the issue, more likely to detach Ulster from the United Kingdom?

Mr. King: The issues that my hon. Friend raises are germane to investigations into criminal proceedings and that matter is addressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. My statement is concerned with discipline and the structure and organisation of the RUC, which are within my responsibilities.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Secretary of State answer the question that I tabled last week, which he avoided answering? Does that tape exist? He knows the answer to that question.
Will he condemn West Yorkshire police who persist in smearing Mr. Stalker by issuing unofficial statements linking him with the murder of Sergeant Speed?

Mr. King: On the latter point, I have no information, and I am certainly not entering into arguments between two mainland police forces in this matter. The hon. Gentleman knows well that the first matter is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the events of the past few weeks will undoubtedly damage Anglo-Irish relations in the short term, they make it more imperative than ever that we have a structure such as that provided by the Anglo-Irish Agreement which is a framework for sensible discussions between the two countries?

Mr. King: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I certainly believe that very strongly. We may not always agree, but we have a mechanism and a procedure under which discussions can take place. I welcome the comments of the Taoiseach in the Dail today making clear the Irish Government's position.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Secretary of State accept that, despite the comments of Conservative Members, the Official Opposition wish to support and do, indeed, support the security forces in the Province in the fight against terrorism? However, in that fight we must above all be seen to be acting within the law. Opposition Members do, indeed, support the fight within the rule of law.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, if the RUC is to be successful not only in its fight against terrorism but in its fight against other forms of crime, it is essential that it should have the confidence and support of both communities in the Province? As the Secretary of State will accept, there has been a gain of confidence in the RUC among the Catholic community in the past few years. If we are to remove the damage that has been done by Stalker and the innuendo and rumour, it is essential that the ghosts of six years ago should be fully exorcised and that the disciplinary procedures are seen to be operated—it is to be hoped, within a relatively short period.
On extradition — a question that the Secretary of State raised — he accepted that the Republic has laid down certain rules and guidelines for the acceptance of extradition warrants from the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State accepted that those conditions existed and that it was correct for a foreign sovereign Government to place such conditions upon extradition warrants. If that is the view of the Secretary of State, will he ask—and inform—his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to comply with those conditions, as that is the reason why extradition proceedings are not taking place?
On the matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), will the Secretary of State again take on board the need for a full day's debate on all these issues? We certainly do not accept that the three-hour debate on the emergency provisions legislation provides adequate time or scope for such a full debate.

Mr. King: The last matter is not one for me, but I think that the hon. Gentleman heard my earlier comments. I thank him for his opening remarks, which showed a balanced approach. I think that the whole House will be pleased to hear that support for the security forces and the comments on the importance of acting within the law and the need for the security forces to have the community's confidence and for disciplinary procedures to be seen to operate fairly and effectively.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about extradition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is anxious for officials to meet to resolve the technical problems. We hope that it will be possible for that to happen soon, so that extradition can operate effectively.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sorry that it has not been possible to call those hon. Members who have been rising. I assure them that I have taken careful note of their names and that they will be given some preference when this matter is next debated.

Standing Committee Proceedings

Sir John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order.

Sir John Farr: I am grateful to you for accepting this point of order. I know that the correct procedure is for me to write to you but, in view of the urgent nature and importance of the matter and the implications to the House, I feel that I should give you notice orally before I send a letter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice of what — a matter of privilege?

Sir John Farr: It relates to the proceedings this morning in Standing Committee C, when the Chairman recommended that I should—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot adjudicate on the Floor of the House on matters that have gone on in Standing Committee. If the hon. Member would like to write to me about the matter, I shall certainly consider what he says, but it cannot be raised on the Floor of the House now.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 4 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Nigel Forman
Sir John Biggs-Davison
Mr. Jim Marshall

Grandparents (Adoption of Children)

Mr. Ray Powell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide legal rights to grandparents for the care or adoption of their grandchildren.
By this Bill, I seek to highlight the fact that the law on this matter, besides being most complicated, provides little legal right for the grandparents of children who are at the centre of care or custodial proceedings arising out of divorce, legal separation or death of the parents or where the children have been the subject of abuse in the matrimonial home.
My Bill will seek to correct a situation in the law that was recognised and partially corrected in 1978 when the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) commenced a campaign, erroneously called the "Grannies Charter", which led to extra clauses being inserted in the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Bill 1978. Those clauses allowed grandparents to apply to the courts for the right to see their grandchildren. The position in law was further recognised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) when he introduced an amendment in 1986 to the Child Care Act 1980. I commend both hon. Members for their tireless efforts and all those whose speeches I have read on this subject. Indeed, I was pleasantly surprised at the extent of effort that has already been made. Nevertheless, the law as it stands provides little legal right for grandparents, for the most part, or for any other interested party, be that family, friend or neighbour.
The law should recognise that the grandparents, from time immemorial, have been regarded by all except the law as part and parcel of the family unit. It should recognise also that, like the children who are at the centre of access, care and adoption proceedings, the majority of grandparents are the innocent victims. The law should recognise and protect the close bond that develops between children and their grandparents.
Because the grandparents, when seeking access, care or adoption orders in the courts, are not treated as close family, as they should be, it leads to many distressing situations that neither they nor the children involved can understand. I should be the first to admit that the children's welfare must be of paramount importance and that there are times when the grandparents' suitability to look after young children is in question, but I know of cases when the grandparents' request for care or adoption has been turned down for the reason of age alone. I suppose that that is understandable in some cases, but it cannot be justified when the people who then become foster parents or guardians are older than the grandparents. That is totally unacceptable.
It is to be hoped that, by making the grandparents' legal position clearer in these circumstances, they will not be the subject of the sometimes unassailable and tyrannical treatment that is meted out to them by the employees of some social services departments. It is heartbreaking to read some of the letters that I have received from grandparents who have been at the receiving end of some of these caring services' decisions. Some people from social services seem to treat grandparents more like interfering strangers than loving members of a close family unit.
Even when grandparents seek access to their grandchildren — what could be more natural than a

loving grandmother or grandfather wishing to see her or his grandchild—things are not simple. There are many cases when grandparents have been denied this access by ex-sons-in-law or ex-daughters-in-law or, in some instances, sons or daughters, guardians or foster parents or even, dare I say, the social workers, who on occasions seem only too intent on destroying close family ties—for the good of the children, or so they purport.
I point out that, in the eyes of the law, there may be ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-sons-in-law or ex-daughters-in-law, ex-fathers-in-law or ex-mothers-in-law, but there cannot be an ex-father or ex-mother, ex-son or ex-daughter or, indeed, an ex-grandparent or ex-grandchild. Blood binds these people together and blood ties cannot be broken by any laws. To attempt to do so is usually to cause great distress.
As I have already stated, the laws appertaining to children and young persons are complex and involve the law courts at many levels. Although I bring the Bill forward in an attempt to change the law for just one group involved, it would have been preferable if the Government had looked into the whole matter of child care laws and brought forward a major review. When debating this subject in the past, many hon. Members have advocated that a family court system should be set up to deal with the type of problems with which I have dealt.
I should like to place on record my deep indebtedness to the many grandparents who have taken the time to write to me on this subject. I am especially grateful to Mrs. Shirley Hefferman, the founder and organiser of POPET, the Parents of Parents' Eternal Triangle, for the wealth of information and help which she has so willingly provided. She has catalogued for the record 400 heartbreaking and emotive cases, some ending in suicide. I have no doubt that her efforts will be rewarded one day, and justice will be done.
There are 93,000 children in care today. An estimated 20,000 children are in care awaiting adoption. Most of them will still be in care at 16, and about 9,000 children are now in care in England and Wales because they have been deserted. Research shows that children in care for six months or more have only a one in four chance of returning to their natural families.
We have the Children Act 1975, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Court Act 1978, the Child Care Act 1980 and the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986. Numerous other Acts cater for and cover child care, but it is essential that we examine the rights of grandparents. I believe that the Government have a duty and responsibility to reform all the laws on children and young persons. That will take time, effort and expense, but it is essential, if we are to give protection to children, that legal rights be given to people who are near and dear to them, so that they are afforded access to them, and the right to love and care for them. They should have the right to shower on the children the love and affection that children who have suffered through no fault of their own deserve.
Thousands of grandparents do not know where to turn when confronted with their grandchildren being taken into care. They should have the right to have their grandchildren before the social services take them into care and appoint guardians and foster parents for them. Most of the heartache I have been told about during the


past months could have been avoided if grandparents had been consulted at the start; in that way, the children that we seek to protect would have benefited.
Let this message go out loud and clear. Hon. Members care about the the plight and misfortune of children and parents—especially grandparents. We shall act to ensure that the law is just and fair and will be altered to protect and win further rights for thousands of heartbroken grandparents who are denied access to their grandchildren. My Bill will help all the thousands of grandparents in this terrible position who desperately want to give true love and understanding to their grandchildren. Theirs is such a pure, innocent, friendly, sexless type of real affection that it should not be denied to their grandchildren. The joy that that would give to grandparents can be clearly understood only by those who have experienced such a wonderful family bond.
For all these reasons, I ask the House to give me leave to bring in my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. Stuart Bell, Mr. Barry Jones, Mr. Robert Litherland, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse and Mr. Robert Wareing.

GRANDPARENTS (ADOPTION OF CHILDREN)

Mr. Ray Powell accordingly presented a Bill to provide legal rights to grandparents for the care and adoption of their grandchildren; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 April and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

Inner London Education Authority

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That this House notes that the Inner London Education Authority has combined profligate overspending with a persistent failure to raise standards of education in its schools; recognises the urgent need for improvements; welcomes the Government's proposals for the transfer of educational functions to the inner London councils in 1990 as the best means of building an education service of high quality for the people of inner London; and approves the decision to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill for this purpose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
I should also tell the House that Mr. Speaker intends to give some preference during the debate to hon. Members representing seats in the Inner London education authority area.
Finally, Mr. Speaker has particularly asked me to appeal for brief contributions, as many right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate.

Mr. Baker: The need to improve the quality of education in inner London is urgent. The contrast between ILEA's levels of expenditure and its mediocre performance is frankly scandalous, and ILEA has shown itself quite incapable of improving matters. There has been a growing view that our objective to raise standards in inner London would be best achieved by a single, orderly transfer of education functions. For that reason, on 4 February I announced the Government's intention to table amendments to wind up ILEA and to transfer education responsibilities to the inner London boroughs and the City of London from 1 April 1990; and I tabled those amendments yesterday.
The authority is so large, and its lines of responsibility so attenuated, that it has been very difficult to start the process of change in the classroom which is so necessary. In addition, those in control of the authority have been too intent on fighting battles peculiar to the London Labour party to get on with the job of improving education. The head teachers of inner London have not been given the support they need. ILEA lost one in seven of its head teachers in 1986. One of them said:
Most of us fought like dogs to save the ILEA. We wouldn't cross the street to save it now.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Baker: I have just started; I shall give way later.
There has been weak political management, coupled with culpable extravagance. Let me remind the House of the levels of ILEA's spending in terms of unit costs. In the primary school, teaching staff costs for metropolitan districts average about £530 per child, for the outer-London boroughs, £590 and for ILEA £730. For primary support staff, the average for the metropolitan districts is £110, for the outer-London boroughs, £130, and for ILEA, £230. As for secondary school support staff costs, the average for the metropolitan districts is £120 per pupil, for the outer-London boroughs, £160, and for ILEA, more than twice that sum—£370. Or take central administration and inspection costs. The average for the


metropolitan districts is £13 per head of population. The corresponding figure for the outer-London boroughs is £17. The figure for ILEA is £36.
How can one be happy with an education service in the capital city of our country in which the level of truancy has got worse over the past decade? In the final year of compulsory education, the truancy rate is almost 30 per cent. across ILEA as a whole, and much worse in some schools. More than 20 per cent. of young people leave school without any qualifications. Barely 15 per cent. of school leavers achieve five or more O-levels, or equivalent, and Her Majesty's inspectorate's assessment is that about 40 per cent. of classes in secondary schools are unsatisfactory or poor. I can do no better than quote the ILEA chairman, Neil Fletcher, who said in 1987:
We have achieved little or nothing in educational terms this year.
Many would accept these criticisms, but argue that there should be more time for ILEA to turn the corner. That is a triumph of hope over experience. ILEA has had seven years in which to reform itself since my predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Carlisle, demanded that it set its house in order. It has not done so. Many of those outside ILEA's charmed circle believe that it is incapable of doing so. That is why the time has come for a new beginning, to rebuild the education service in inner London. I give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Tony Banks: I cannot remember what I wanted to ask.

Mr. Baker: I am delighted that the hon. Member has been convinced by the argument.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Secretary of State made great play about the cost of ancillary support in ILEA schools. Is it better to have a school secretary or a teacher typing out and duplicating material?

Mr. Baker: That is a daft intervention. By any standard, ILEA, in terms of both central administration and support staff, is extravagant. That is almost beyond debate. It is accepted.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I can perhaps make the intervention that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) sought to make. The Secretary of State said that head teachers were worried about the state of ILEA. Is he aware of the recent statement made by the London Head Teachers Association, a branch of the National Association of Head Teachers? It said:
It is absolutely essential to emphasise … the need for a unified education service in Inner London.
How does he square that with what he said?

Mr. Baker: I am delighted that the hon. Member can at least speak for one person in the House other than himself, although I find the idea of him speaking for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West extraordinary. I have asked to see the various head teacher associations about this matter because they have expressed their views, and later I shall be sending out other invitations. I can square what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has said with what I have said. Many individual head teachers in London have clearly expressed the view that they do not wish to continue under ILEA.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: Let me continue my speech. I will try to give way to as many Opposition Members as I can.
In our manifesto, we signalled the end of the unitary authority for the education service in inner London. As councils have taken advantage of the opportunity presented by that policy, many have also argued that it would be more sensible to have an orderly transfer of educational responsibilities, and this we have now accepted.

Mr. Jack Straw: The Secretary of State said that in the manifesto the Government signalled the end of ILEA. He knows that not to be the case. Why was it that he and other members of the Cabinet rejected the proposition from the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that ILEA should be abolished? Why was that not included in the manifesto?

Mr. Baker: I answered that point a fortnight ago, but I am happy to answer it again. In the manifesto we clearly signalled the end of a unitary authority in London because we allowed London boroughs to opt out if they wished to do so. Because three London boroughs have already decided to do so and two others have also shown their interest in doing so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which?"] Both boroughs have seen me about this. I am not including any of the Labour boroughs, but one happens to know through the gossip net — I never pay attention to the gossip net, and never adduce it as support for our policy — that certain other discussions have taken place and interest has been shown by some of the Labour boroughs. However, I do not wish to give credence to the gossip net.
Yesterday, we tabled amendments to the Education Reform Bill.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker: No. I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Yesterday we tabled amendments. Some are arguing that constitutionally a new Bill is needed. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has argued this point. I have looked into this and there are precedents for what we are doing. For example, with the Labour Government's Industry Bill in 1975, which was under the guillotine, there was a supplementary timetable because an important part of it had to be redrafted to accommodate a major change in policy. On that occasion, the Government did not provide an extra day on the Floor of the House. When the amending guillotine motion was moved, the new clauses and amendments were not available to the House. It is absurd to claim that the Education Reform Bill, which clearly envisaged from the start the end of the unitary authority, should not be amended in this way.

Mr. Stuart Holland: As one of those who was responsible for drafting the Industry Bill in Government, I would be obliged to know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks the substantive part of that Bill concerned.

Mr. Baker: The Bill, as it was presented to the House, set out a voluntary process by which companies provided


information to their employees, and the Government in which the hon. Gentleman served — or was he a civil servant at that time?

Mr. Holland: A civil servant.

Mr. Baker: The Government which the hon. Gentleman served in that capacity decided that voluntary powers were no longer necessary and changed them to compulsory powers. Therefore, there is a precedent for this procedure.

Mr. Holland: There is no comparison between those provisions of the Industry Bill and what the Minister is doing. A comparison would be if the Government, after introducing a Bill that did not include a major national holding company such as the National Enterprise Board, then sought to do so.

Mr. Baker: I regret that the hon. Gentleman thinks that a change from companies voluntarily providing information to the Government compelling them to do so is a minor matter. That view is not shared by the Conservative party.
In clause 115 of the Education Reform Bill, we set out the need for a residuary body in the circumstances of ILEA's abolition. We made it clear that that residuary body would be modelled upon the one that was set up for the abolition of the GLC. Thus, the principle of abolition was clearly envisaged in the Bill as it was presented to the House. What we are doing in the amendments introduced yesterday is specifying in more detail how this should be done.
Twenty-five clauses were added yesterday and nine have been dropped from the earlier Bill, so there is a net addition of 16. Of those 16, half relate to the London residuary body and the other half to the arrangements for the transfer of staff. It would have been irresponsible not to have specified in detail the arrangements we propose.
I come now to the details of the new clauses that will be before the Committee. In new clause 61 we shall require the inner-London councils to publish development plans. Each plan will provide a basis for local consultation and will offer local people an opportunity to comment to their councils.
I intend to issue statutory guidance as soon as possible after Royal Assent making clear the ground to be covered in those plans — for example, the boroughs' proposals for organising the transfer of responsibilities and the way they would implement them for primary, secondary, special and further education, including adult and continuing education, and for services such as the careers service and the youth service. We shall wish to pay particular attention to the administrative structure and arrangements for senior appointments. We intend to issue a draft of this guidance while the Bill is before Parliament so that we may take fully into account the views of interested organisations. I shall shortly be inviting ILEA and the leaders of all the inner-London boroughs to meetings with me and the unit that I have established in the Department to deal with this process.
One important aspect of these plans will be the property which the boroughs will need to inherit from ILEA to run their education service. The duties of the London residuary body will be extended to allow it to function as the residuary body for ILEA. It will have the task of disposing of assets which remain unallocated to local

councils, and will be able to use the proceeds of these disposals for the purpose of paying staff compensation. It is our intention that part of the proceeds of the sale of county hall should be available for this purpose. The clause I have tabled will ensure that a proper distinction is made between the London residuary body's functions arising from the abolition of the GLC and those arising from the abolition of ILEA.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: In a moment.
The hon. Members who are familiar with the arrangements following the GLC abolition will know that the London residuary body has taken on certain functions of the GLC to allow time for other arrangements to be made. A similar provision is included in the new clauses I tabled yesterday. I remind hon. Members that we propose to extend the life of the London residuary body to three years beyond the abolition of ILEA. This will allow sufficient time for any appropriate arrangements to be made.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and no doubt he is grateful to me that he can now have a drink of water. He answered one point about the extension of the life of the LRB. Is he aware that the LRB was aiming to wind itself up 12 months earlier than the statutory limit set down in the abolition Bill, and that, in anticipation, it has been getting rid of its staff? What will he do about getting more staff for it now that he plans to extend its life?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman follows these matters closely. The LRB has conducted its affairs exceptionally efficiently. The new clauses give it the additional functions of winding up the residual functions of ILEA. I have seen the chairman of the LRI3, Sir Godfrey Taylor, this morning and he is content with that particular role.

Mr. Banks: I am not surprised.

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to resign and offer his services in various capacities in inner London, I am sure that many will at least consider him, if not offer him something.
Eight of the clauses tabled yesterday relate to staff transfer and follow closely those arrangements established for the abolition of the GLC. They are designed to prevent any disruption to the education of children. [Interruption.] For that reason all ILEA staff working at individual schools and colleges at the date of abolition will transfer by order to the employment of the borough concerned. Those block transfer arrangements will cover well over 80 per cent. of ILEA staff.
For all recent local government reorganisations a staff commission has been set up. The work of the staff commission was greatly valued at the time of the abolition of the GLC. The clauses that I have tabled will provide for a staff commission with the same terms of reference as the one for the GLC.
The particular concern of the staff commission will be in relation to staff who are not transferred by order, namely those not linked to particular schools or colleges. Those include the staff in county hall and divisional offices, the direct labour organisation and the supplies organisation, as well as groups such as inspectors, youth and community personnel, educational psychologists,


educational welfare officers and drivers. It may be that some of these staff will be transferred by order with the agreement of the relevant borough. In any event, individual boroughs will need to recruit staff in order to carry out their responsibilities as education authorities. The staff commission will give guidance to authorities about their arrangements for the recruitment of staff, encouraging them in the first instance to consider staff from ILEA. We want to ensure, so far as possible, that the store of experience which is available within the authority's staff continues to be used for the benefit of the education service in inner London.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose—

Mr. Baker: I will give way in a moment.
Redundancy compensation will be available for those staff who are not offered a post by one of the boroughs, and detriment compensation will also be available, where appropriate, on the generous terms applying at the time of the abolition of the GLC.

Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State has touched on a matter which runs contrary to what he said earlier. He talked about schools and colleges, but did he not say that there would be special arrangements for special schools and the whole of the 500,000 adult education structure? In what he has just said he is implying that the boroughs will be the prime employer. How does that square with what he said earlier?

Mr. Baker: In some cases the boroughs will want to take on the responsibilities exclusively, for example, on special education. In other areas they may wish to do so on a co-operative basis with the neighbouring borough. That is why I am inviting the leaders and chief executives of the London boroughs and ILEA to see me. What may be appropriate for one borough may not be appropriate for another.
The detriment arrangements will provide compensation for those who are recruited directly by local government employers but on lower salaries than they had been paid by the ILEA. The detriment compensation would offset the salary loss up to a maximum of £5,000 a year for up to seven years. Redundancy payments will be based on length of employment, with a special weighting for those over the age of 41.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Baker: No; I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Banks: Only once.

Mr. Baker: Twice. The hon. Gentleman missed his other chance.
Let me make it clear that the fundamental principle of our proposals is that each borough should become the LEA for its area. Under the Education Act 1944 I have the power to require authorities to set up joint education committees for particular aspects of their service, where I believe that this would be of benefit. Less formal cooperative arrangements are also available. The Government have not decided which, if any, aspects of the education service in inner London might need to be treated in this way. We shall naturally be looking carefully at this question, but we believe that this is a matter on which the

views of the inner-London boroughs and of organisations and others with an interest in education should be taken fully into account.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If consultative arrangements did not produce an agreement to share resources, can the Secretary of State honestly say to the House now that he is satisfied that boroughs which he has often criticised, such as mine in Southwark, are competent to run education for the children of Southwark? That has never been his view. Is it now his view?

Mr. Baker: I find it extraordinary that a Liberal Member makes that point. A closely neighbouring borough, Tower Hamlets, where the Liberals are in charge, has expressed considerable interest in running its education authority. What is right for the Liberals in Tower Hamlets does not seem right for the Labour party in the rest of inner London.
To answer the hon. Gentleman directly, there are various safeguards. There is the whole process of publishing the development plans and all the discussions that go into that. We shall be particularly concerned with the administrative structure that will be set up by each borough to administer the local education service. There is the possibility of co-operative arrangements and already there are signs of interest in them in certain areas. There are safeguards in the Education Reform Bill in that while this will be happening we shall introduce the national curriculum, so it will not be possible to distort the curriculum for political reasons. There will be more open enrolment. The Liberal party broadly supports all of those. There will be a greater choice for parents. There will be improvements in financial delegation and heads will have much greater authority. There will be the opportunity for schools to opt out. The ultimate safeguard, which will no doubt please the hon. Gentleman because he is a democrat in all these matters, is that there will be borough elections in May 1990. Local councils will have to go to their electorate with their proposals for the education service in their area and by then they will be independent LEAs.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Until I was elected in June 1 was an education officer with an outer-London borough. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we had good inter-borough relationships with other boroughs and with the shire counties for special education? Clearly, individual boroughs cannot provide the complete range of special education that is necessary.

Mr. Baker: I am glad of my hon. Friend's confirmation of that. There is a great deal of co-operation on special education within inner London and between inner London and the rest of London. It is likely that there will be a large amount of that in future. The services cannot always be duplicated.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: rose—

Mr. Derek Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Baker: Many hon. Members wish to speak, including those who represent inner-London constituencies, so I must press ahead.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall continue. He will have his chance later if he wishes to speak.
I should like to say something about the financial implications of our proposals. Opposition Members continue to spread scare stories about the rich boroughs gaining and the poorer boroughs being left destitute, but that simply fails to recognise the effect of the new arrangements for local government finance from 1990. Under the new financing arrangements each inner-London borough will get a standard share of the unified business rate and a revenue support grant based on an assessment of its need. That assessment will include allowance for socio-economic factors. It will take account of special needs and deprivation. The balance of funding will come from the community charge, although in the early years there will be dual running with domestic rates and safety net arrangements to assist the transition for community charge payers in the inner-London boroughs.
From 1 April 1990, therefore, all inner-London boroughs will get a needs grant which will take account of their individual circumstances. Part of that grant will be based on an assessment of education need, including such factors as the number of pupils and students and a measure of additional educational needs reflecting the socio-economic circumstances of the area. The Government will naturally be consulting on the detailed arrangements with the local authority associations.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Ms. Joan Ruddock: rose—

Mr. Baker: No, I will not give way.
The result will be to allocate resources to boroughs according to their needs, which is what ILEA claims that it does currently with the resources that it distributes centrally. The Government recognise that the boroughs are likely to inherit high-cost provision from ILEA because it is such a high-spending authority.
There are powers in the Local Government Finance Bill, currently before the House, to cap community charges. Those powers will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to distinguish between different categories of authority when determining the criteria for selection. The inner-London boroughs will form one of those categories and this will enable my right hon. Friend to consider their particular circumstances. In addition, we are considering whether any special transitional measures for community charge capping might be desirable in the case of the inner-London boroughs. That means that, by the time of the borough elections in May 1990, each inner-London borough will have assumed education responsibilities.
Their education policies will be a central part of those elections and that is how it should be. Behind all the arrangements, supporting and buttressing them, will be the Government's radical proposals to improve the quality of education throughout the country. All the policies which I have already mentioned and which are part of the Education Reform Bill—the national curriculum, open enrolment, financial delegation and the power of schools to opt out—will, of course, apply to inner London.
We now have an opportunity for a new beginning. The leaders of the Labour councils in inner London, for all their huffing and puffing, recognise that. In a letter to The Independent on 9 February they wrote:
The uncertainty has now come to an end.

I welcome that recognition. I remember only too well that false hopes about what would happen in the House of Lords over the Greater London council abolition Bill meant that the Labour boroughs started very late in the day to plan for transfer. That delay was damaging for them. Three boroughs are now well advanced in their planning. Westminster has already appointed a shadow chief education officer—a former senior official of ILEA. Preliminary work and discussions have taken place in another two boroughs. It is in the best interests of everybody, for ILEA and the Labour boroughs, to cooperate now in planning the transfer. I hope that all the boroughs will use the two years available to the full and that they will enter into discussions jointly with my Department to achieve orderly and beneficial change in the interests of parents, staff and children—particularly the children.
What we are doing is to give local councils and local people the opportunity to improve London's education service, and to create schools and colleges of which we can be proud. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, to leave out from "notes" to the end of the Question and tc add instead thereof:
that successive reviews under the present Administration have concluded that the educational needs of inner London are best served by a unitary authority; salutes the Inner London Education Authority for its achievements in maintaining and improving educational standards and opportunities; and condemns Her Majesty's Government's about-turn in deciding to break up the Inner London Education Authority, a decision without mandate or popular support and one which will put educational standards and provision in inner London at serious risk.
The Government are led by a Prime Minister who has made an obsession of constancy and never turning back or turning round. This afternoon's motion asks us to approve a Government U-turn that is so complete that it wholly contradicts what was said by Ministers on Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill. Indeed, the U-turn is so sudden that it contradicts the settled line taken by the Government as late as the end of January. It is so hasty that the crucial detail of what we are being asked to approve was not tabled until last night, in 23 clauses and a host of amendments, in what amounts to a medium-sized new Bill.
In his speech this afternoon, as in his statement on 4 February, the Secretary of State has stretched credibility to breaking point by asking us to believe that there is no significant difference between the policy that we are now invited to approve and that which the House approved on Second Reading on 1 December 1987. The Government's new policy is to break up ILEA. The Secretary of State tried to suggest that that was the same policy on which the election was fought, by which ILEA was to be retained. He claims that it is all part of the same continuum or, to put it in the Secretary of State's words, that the U-turn for the destruction of ILEA was somehow "signalled" or "flagged" in the election manifesto in June 1987, which explicitly provided for ILEA's continuance.
If the Secretary of State knows what was in the June 1987 manifesto, he must know that his current claim is sheer baloney. There is not a word, dot or comma in that manifesto about the abolition of ILEA. All that was said


about ILEA concerned allowing boroughs, in strictly defined circumstances, to opt out of ILEA. The manifesto said:
In the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority, where entire borough councils"—
one assumes that that means that it is the unanimous view of a borough council—
wish to become independent of the ILEA, they will be able to submit proposals to the Secretary of State requesting permission to take over the provision of education within their boundaries.
That pledge was contained in the Bill, debated on Second Reading less than 11 weeks ago, and in the speeches made by Ministers on that occasion. On Second Reading the Secretary of State went out of his way to play down any disruption that might follow in the wake of any individual borough applying to opt out. He said:
I shall need to be satisfied that the borough has a full plan covering every aspect of the education service for its area … no borough can opt out of ILEA without specific parliamentary approval.
As ever, it is to the Secretary of State's deputy, the Minister of State, to whom we are truly indebted. When she replied to the debate, she went much further. She went out of her way to distinguish between the Government's proposals, which, at most, would have ensured that no more than four boroughs would have opted out leaving the majority of ILEA intact, and the policy that was then being urged upon the Government by the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). In answer to those two right hon. Gentlemen specifically the Minister, with the Secretary of State at her side, said:
the Government's aim is to improve both the quality and cost-effectiveness of education in inner London. That would not be achieved at this stage by imposing educational responsibilities on unwilling boroughs."—
[Official Report,l December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 780–856.]
That was the clear view of the Secretary of State and of the Minister. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell me how that view is consistent with the view that he has now enunciated to the House. I defy him to do so.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: rose—

Mr. Straw: Ah! The real Secretary of State is here, the man who makes the decisions. Of course I will give way to him.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that my right hon. Friend belongs to the listening party? Having listened to the arguments, he has come to the right judgment.

Mr. Straw: I recognise only too well that the right hon. Member for Henley has rolled over the Secretary of State and forced the U-turn upon the Government. I am extremely glad of his confirmation of that, but it was not the line adopted by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State would have us believe that there is no difference between the decision adopted on 1 December and that adopted today. How odd it is that today the Secretary of State made no reference, at any stage, to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford or the early-day motion to which those right hon. Gentlemen were such proud signatories and which was the only cause of the subsequent policy change.

Mr. John Maples: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the steps that the Government have taken are so wrong, how does he square that with the views of the immediate past chief education officer of ILEA and a former deputy education officer of that authority, that if four boroughs were allowed to opt out it would be better to abolish ILEA now?

Mr. Straw: I square that by giving the view of Mr. Stubbs who believes that ILEA should never be abolished either by allowing individual boroughs to opt out or by its complete dismemberment.
The settled policy of the Government was based not only on the policy enunciated on 1 December. In a detailed press notice issued on 21 January 1988—less than two weeks before the Secretary of State's statement today—the Home Secretary set out the new electoral arrangements for the Inner London education authority. That set out in detail the new arrangements that would be operated for the ILEA elections to take place in 1990. Yet, less than two weeks later, the Secretary of State had to stand on his head and tell the House and the country that improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of education in inner London would, after all, be achieved by imposing education responsibilities upon unwilling boroughs—the exact opposite of what the House was told just 11 weeks ago.
For such an extraordinary change in policy—that is what it manifestly is — we might be forgiven for expecting a clear or detailed explanation to be offered by the Secretary of State, but, as we heard from his tawdry, lacklustre speech, none whatever was forthcoming—

Mr. Tony Marlow: It says it here.

Mr. Straw: No, it does not say that at all.
The real explanation has nothing to do with the needs of London's children and everything to do with the private enterprise of the right hon. Member for Henley and his Siamese twin the right hon. Member for Chingford. Where is the right hon. Member for Chingford, given the close interest that he has claimed to take in the future of London's education and given the articles that he has written excoriating inner London education?

Mr. Dobson: He is mending telephones for BT.

Mr. Straw: I think that I do both the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford no disservice if I say that, in the past, neither has been known as a byword for educational enlightenment. In fairness to both right hon. Members, we can say that in the past their ignorance of ILEA and its work has been matched by a humble public silence. For instance, the right hon. Member for Henley wrote a book fewer than 10 months ago entitled, "Where There's a Will." I understand that the right hon. Member for Chingford is not here because he is earning an honest copper writing a slim volume for British Telecom entitled, "Telephone Boxes in Working Order."

Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny that the book written by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is already remaindered at Waterloo station?

Mr. Straw: If the section on education is anything to go by, which is the only chapter that I managed to read, I am not surprised.
The right hon. Member for Henley devoted a Fabian-leaning chapter in "Where There's a Will" to "Education, Investing in the Future." But in the whole of that chapter —and in the whole book—there is not a single word about the abolition of ILEA. That is the issue that the right hon. Gentleman now regards as of paramount importance above all others in British politics, yet 10 months ago he wrote not a single word about it in his book, which offered the most detailed prescriptions for all the country's woes, and many that we did not even know were woes at all.
As was all too apparent in the statement two weeks ago, for the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford the issue of ILEA's future is all a bit of a lark—an occasion, as the right hon. Member for Henley described it, for a "couple of likely lads" — the right hon. Gentleman's words, not mine—to mess about with the education of 270,000 pupils as if it were an expendable plaything.
The ignorance and irresponsibility of those two right hon. Members may just be excusable as neither of them holds high office any longer; but, if there is any excuse for them, there can be no excuse for the ignorance and irresponsibility of the Secretary of State. By his supine decision to roll over and order the break-up of ILEA, he has shown himself to be an unworthy guardian of the needs and interests of London's children and students and to be blind to inner London's achievements.
I am not surprised about the Secretary of State's ignorance. He has been Secretary of State for nearly two years; yet, according to an answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), in the whole of that time he has managed to visit just one ILEA school, which was a voluntarily-aided Roman Catholic school. In the whole time that the right hon. Gentleman has been Secretary of State, he has not visited a single county primary, voluntary-aided primary, voluntary-controlled primary or county secondary school in the whole of ILEA. Yet, on the basis of total ignorance, he believes that he can make judgments on the future of 270,000 pupils and students, about which he knows virtually nothing.

Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend might remember that in Committee the other day I was talking about visiting schools, and the Secretary of State lectured me, telling me that it was about time I visited a few schools. He said that, having visited just one Catholic school in ILEA. What a nerve!

Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It proves the point that the Secretary of State has never been willing to allow the facts to interfere with his ignorance about ILEA.

Mr. David Evennett: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that ILEA has been a great educational success?

Mr. Straw: Yes; and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to listen, I shall quote from a report by Her Majesty's inspectors, which the Secretary of State has sought to suppress from the House.
During the statement two weeks ago, the Secretary of State made much play with selective quotations from reports on ILEA schools by the inspectorate. I asked him from which reports he was quoting, to which the Secretary of State replied:

These are very recent reports. I shall make them available."—[Official Report, 4 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1182.]
I asked the right hon. Gentleman what reports he was referring to and whether he would specify all the reports that had been written on ILEA. The right hon. Gentleman fudged the issue. I have checked in the Library which reports he made available. No report on ILEA has been made available since the right hon. Gentleman made his statement. Indeed, the most recent report that has been made available was in respect of an inspection on Clapton school for girls, dated 28 October to 1 November 1985 —two and a half years ago.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman referred to the published reports on ILEA by the HMI. All the reports are now published and made publicly available. When I quoted, I quoted from publicly available reports. I shall take no lectures from any member of the Labour party about the publication of reports because, while the Labour Government were in office, they did not publish one report.

Mr. Straw: The decision to publish HMI reports was taken by the then Sir Keith Joseph—a decision that we applaud—and no thanks to the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman is trying to preen himself on his record of publication, perhaps he will say why, in the answer that he gave me, he made no reference to the report by his senior chief inspector on the future of ILEA, dated 2 February. It was sent to me by a well-wisher. It gives a completely different picture from that which the Secretary of State has tried to paint.
Today the Secretary of State said:
ILEA has shown itself quite incapable of improving matters.
The motion describes ILEA as a profligate overspender
with a persistent failure to raise standards of education".

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
Let me read to the Secretary of State what the report says about the authority that has apparently failed to raise standards. On primary education, it says:
The ILEA's provision for the under-fives is among the best in the country".
On primary, post-nursery education, the report says:
overall the quality of ILEA's primary schools is similar to that found generally in the country.
On non-advanced further education, the report says:
Standards of provision and work are generally good and in some cases excellent. In our recent national survey on non-advanced further education, the proportion of good work seen in ILEA's colleges was significantly higher than that of the country as a whole.
Is that an example of an authority with a persistent failure to raise standards of education?

Mr. John Marshall: rose—

Mr. Anthony Coombs: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
On adult and continuing education, the report says:
overall ILEA's adult education is a first-rate service in every respect … Most of the work seen is judged excellent or good".
On youth service, the report states:
Overall the quality of youth work and provision is good but there are examples of poor standards in practice … That said youth work in the ILEA has to deal with some of the most difficult situations in the country: in Brixton, in Tower


Hamlets and in Soho and the West End where it is concerned with homeless drifting young people, not only from London —often involved with drugs.
On special education, the report states:
The ILEA makes complex and extensive provision for the full range of special needs and puts particular emphasis on catering for special needs in ordinary schools".
The report is critical of ILEA's secondary schools. It says:
Secondary education in the ILEA is generally rather poor though there are a few schools of high quality, mainly in the voluntary sector … Pupils taking public examinations at 16 in the ILEA do less well in absolute terms than do their counterparts from maintained schools in England as a whole".
Her Majesty's senior chief inspector wrote to the Secretary of State:
When the results are statistically adjusted for socioeconomic factors the ILEA appears to perform up to expectations.
Just to deal with the central part of the case that was made by the Secretary of State, which is that ILEA has been incapable of improving itself and that it has persistently failed to raise educational standards, I shall quote paragraph 6 on page 8 of the senior chief inspector's report. It states:
Whatever its"—
ILEA's—
previous shortcomings, over the past two or three years there has been a marked move towards the improvement of quality, notably through an increase in inspection and in school improvement strategies arising from the findings of inspection as well as from the policies of the authority. In fact there are clear signs that the findings of inspection are beginning to have an influence on the formulation of policy in the Inner London Education Authority.
Of seven services analysed in the report, four are described as good, two are described as average, and one is described as poor. The one that is described as poor is also described as getting a great deal better. I ask the Secretary of State whether the report was made available to the Cabinet and the Cabinet Committee when the Cabinet decided to dismember ILEA, as the right hon. Member for Henley has wished.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is not a report; it is a confidential minute to me from the senior chief inspector. In the course of each month, I receive many such reports on a variety of different matters. The hon. Gentleman said that it came into his hands through a well-wisher. We should like to know who the well-wisher is, because it is a leaked document. The paper that is attached to it is not a separate report; it is a summary of all the independent reports that have been published. They are public documents and are available. The hon. Gentleman quoted selectively from it. I remind him of the grave concern about secondary education that that minute conveyed to me. The hon. Gentleman said that secondary education is a matter of concern. It is a matter of grave concern when the figures come out and 40 per cent. of lessons are judged to be unsatisfactory or poor.

Mr. Straw: I quoted from that document, but the Secretary of State knows that I quoted the next paragraph also, saying:
When the results are statistically adjusted for socioeconomic factors the ILEA appears to perform up to expectations".

Above all, I quoted from the section showing that, according to the senior chief inspector, standards in ILEA are rising and the authority has been doing a great deal to ensure an increase in standards.

Mr. John Marshall: How does the hon. Gentleman square his comment about ILEA with those of Mr. Neil Fletcher a year ago? Writing to members of his own Labour group, he said:
We have achieved little or nothing in educational terms this year.
Prior to that, he said:
Parents believe the schools are now out of control. Their heads have largely adopted a bunker mentality, believing things are going to get worse before they get better.
Surely Mr. Neil Fletcher knows the facts of the situation, and the hon. Gentleman should accept them.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman does well to read from the Conservative Central Office brief a quotation that the Secretary of State has used about three times. The important thing about that quotation, as Mr. Neil Fletcher has made clear in a long letter to the Secretary of State this afternoon, is that it was taken completely out of context.

Mr. Richard Tracey: On the point about secondary schools, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, within ILEA, there are facts showing that there are 83 totally empty secondary school classrooms, that 20 per cent. more pupils are leaving the ILEA area and 20 per cent. fewer are going into it? Parents are particularly concerned about secondary education. That is the crux of the matter. The hon. Gentleman does the House a disservice by ignoring it.

Mr. Straw: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Every day there is a net importation into ILEA of 3,000 pupils, including 300 from Barnet.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall not give way. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must get on and finish my speech.
It is not only the inspectorate that has praised the performance of ILEA, but, for example, the Confederation of British Industry and leading industrial-ists. One of the many good things that ILEA has done has been to establish the London business compact. According to The Times Educational Supplement,
Some of Britain's top industrialists are praising the authority for breaking new ground in collaboration with employers.
Sir David Steel, former BP chairman, says that the scheme is a long-term policy for the good of the country.
The Secretary of State mutters under his breath that that will continue, but he is placing at serious risk all the good things that ILEA has done.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has launched a full-frontal assault on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am glad, but not surprised, that my right hon. Friend is totally undamaged by it. Having launched his assault, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is the policy of the Labour party to reinstate ILEA at a later stage?

Mr. Straw: It is the policy of the Labour party to fight for the continuance of ILEA and to ensure that this obnoxious proposal is overturned in the House of Lords when it is debated there. Unlike the Conservative party,


the Labour party has democratic procedures for deciding the future of its manifesto. It will not be written on the back of an envelope and then torn up a few weeks later.
The Secretary of State referred to ILEA's examination results. A great attempt has been made by Conservative Members to use crude examination figures, suggesting that ILEA is near the bottom of the league table. The right hon. Member for Henley may well try to do that, but, as he will know, that is as absurd as seeking to compare the examination results of Eton college with those of an inner-urban school in adjacent Slough. Her Majesty's inspectors accept, as does anyone who studies the matter, that examination results must be offset by reference to pupils' socio-economic backgrounds. When that is done, ILEA's performance turns out to be average or above average. It was above average—almost exactly the same as for Oxfordshire and well above that for the right hon. Member for Chingford's Waltham Forest—when it was controlled by the alliance of Liberals and Conservatives. According to the Sheffield university league table, ILEA came 56th. According to the Department of Education and Science's own statistical bulletin, No. 13 of 1984, ILEA was placed 45th—somewhere below Oxfordshire, but miles above Waltham Forest at 86th.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his reference to exam results, on the undoctored results, ILEA comes bottom of the list. I would not quote those figures. When the list was published, it came close to the bottom. It was 86th. I shall not base my argument upon that. The hon. Gentleman said that if we allow for socio-economic factors, it comes about halfway down the list—about 56th or so. I accept that if we allow for socio-economic factors. I have always said that, and I have said it repeatedly. But the point is that ILEA comes halfway down the list. When we consider education results and costs, it is number one. It is the cost-effectiveness of ILEA that is the gravest indictment against it.

Mr. Straw: I was about to refer to costs. Ten authorities were below ILEA. It was not bottom of the league. It is typical of the Secretary of State not to have the details at his fingertips, to make a point, and then to say that he is not making that point. It is absolutely typical of the shoddy way in which he seeks to treat the House.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on the adjusted results of two analyses, the Conservative-controlled boroughs of Bexley and Bromley had worse examination results than ILEA in the Sheffield university study and the Department of Education and Science's own analysis of examination results, adjusted for socio-economic factors? Does that mean that the Secretary of State will abolish Bexley and Bromley because their results are worse than ILEA's?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has made a crucial point. As ILEA is by no means the least cost-effective authority, will the Secretary of State use his axe on other authorities, including many Conservative authorities, and say that, if they fall below a particular standard, they, too, will be abolished, or that their educational responsibilities will be handed over to authorities which have no mandate for them and do not want them?
I shall now deal with the issue of costs, which the Secretary of State has just raised. First, there will be higher costs for running any service in the centre of a capital city,

but the Secretary of State tries to close his eyes to that argument. All capital city services cost more— indeed, that is true of private sector organisations such as banks and insurance companies. That is why so many have moved their administrations out of the capital. Evidently, that would not be available to a London-based service. That fact is also true of the Health Service and of social services. Per head the social services costs of Westminster city council, which is Conservative-controlled, are three times those of boroughs outside London, and in many cases Westminster's costs are much higher than those of other inner-London boroughs.
Above all, that fact is true of the Metropolitan police —[HON. MEMBERS: "Give us the figures, Jack."] Indeed, I shall give the figures. Of course, the Metropolitan police force—any city police force—has responsibilities for terrorism, diplomatic protection and fraud simply by being a capital city and such responsibilities are not encountered elsewhere. If those are taken into account, a malign Secretary of State could easily say of the Metropolitan police force, "Here we have a police:Force which has continued profligate overspending and shown a persistent failure to raise standards."
The crime rate of the Metropolitan police area is only marginally above that of the Greater Manchester police and Merseyside areas. However, the clear-up rate for the Metropolitan police is one third that of Merseyside or Greater Manchester. For every 12 crimes that are cleared up per police officer in Greater Manchester and every 13 that are cleared up in Merseyside, only four crimes are cleared up per police officer in London.
When we consider overall costs, those of the Metropolitan police are more than twice as high as those of other authorities. The cost per police officer in the Metropolitan area, at £35,000, is 1·4 times higher than that for England as a whole; the cost of civilians is 3·2 times higher; the cost of premises is twice as high; and the cost of catering four times as high. Will the Secretary of State use those figures to tell us that, on the basis of that persistent failure to improve standards, the Metropolitan police should be handed over to the London boroughs, because that is the clear conclusion of that argument?
Secondly, ILEA has had to pay heavily for a stable teacher force. This afternoon the Secretary of State tried to make much of the fact that one in seven head teachers has left the service in the past year. That argument was completely confounded when it was pointed out to the Secretary of State that both the Secondary Heads Association and the London branch of the National Association of Head Teachers have completely damned his proposals for dismembering ILEA.
It is a self-evident truth that the cost of living in London is much greater than the cost of living elsewhere. The response of private sector employers is to pay what the market will allow, but, because of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, that option is not available to any individual education authority. Therefore, what ILEA has had to do—and what it has done over the past 14 years —is to improve the conditions of service facing teachers in its schools. It has reduced pupil-teacher ratios to make a more congenial working environment. It has greatly expanded in-service training and support. It has increased non-teaching assistance. It has used its ability as a unitary authority to move teachers to the least popular areas—


for example, Tower Hamlets and Hackney—and to give teachers in those areas support which they could not possibly achieve in an individual borough.
Moreover, ILEA's high level of spending has benefited the outer-London boroughs in terms of training, support, curriculum and development. ILEA has subsidised the outer-London boroughs and the rest of the country. Indeed, my third point relates to the volume of provision. ILEA covers 5 per cent. of the population, but accounts for 18 per cent. of all adult education provision and 25 per cent. of this country's youth provision. That is a question not of profligacy but of democratic choice by the electors of London. London, and London alone, has paid for that choice, and for five years not a penny has been forthcoming from central Government. Those decisions have been made by Londoners for Londoners, and the Government have not paid a single penny for them.
The Secretary of State should say whether he wants that provision to be cut. Conservative Members should say whether they want that because their electors, living in the rest of the south-east, often make great use of adult education provision that is paid for by the inner-London ratepayers. Their electors benefit from the youth service provisions. The Secretary of State should say whether he wants that youth provision cut. He should also say whether the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis wants that provision cut, with all its consequences for the crime rate. He should say whether he wants adult education provision cut because, if he does not, he will never achieve the level of savings that he is now seeking.
As I said on Second Reading, it is not easy to bring the charge of consistency against the Secretary of State. However, as he admitted on "Newsnight" two weeks ago, he can claim an unremitting hostility to ILEA ever since the authority closed the St. Marylebone grammar school for boys in 1977. Like all hon. Members, I understand the strong feelings that school closures engender. There is no doubt about the Secretary of State's feelings about that closure, even though ILEA, the then Secretary of State and the governors of the school, who proposed not a closure but a reorganisation and a merger with another school, would have a different story to tell. Whatever the merits of that decision, anger about it is a wholly inadequate reason, 11 years later, for running a vendetta against ILEA and for placing London's education service at such serious risk.
The case for a single unitary authority has been examined with considerable thoroughness four times during the past 10 years. Lord Marshall, then vice-chairman of the Conservative party, conducted an inquiry —[Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Chingford regards this issue as so important that an hour into the debate he has deigned to show his presence.
Lord Marshall, then the vice-chairman of the Conservative party, conducted an inquiry in 1978 and concluded in favour of a single authority. His comments on the flimsy recommendations of the Secretary of State when, as a Back Bencher, he produced a report on an ILEA break-up were:
The physical and financial difficulties in setting up new local education authorities in the inner London boroughs would be so severe that in my submission only a fool would attempt it.

The Secretary of State's 1980 views were rejected root and branch by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Mark Carlisle, as they were later by his successor, Sir Keith Joseph. In his statement to the House on 5 April 1984, Sir Keith Joseph stated:
Those whom we consulted, in particular those Members of the House and others with a close understanding of the needs of inner London, were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly elected authority. We have been persuaded by their arguments. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special case."—[Official Report, 5 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 1124.]
On Second Reading of the Local Government Bill, in December 1984, Sir Keith Joseph explained his reasons:
We came to that conclusion"—
the conclusion to have a single unitary authority—
because there is so much movement across borough boundaries by London children and students that to break up ILEA would mean a very big departure indeed from current practice. We therefore decided to keep a unitary authority" —[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 127.]
I ask the Secretary of State again: have those movements across borough boundaries suddenly ceased in the past four weeks? Of course not. In the most densely populated part of Britain, the case for a single unitary education authority remains as strong as ever. It was that case that persuaded Lord Whitelaw, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to reject the proposals of the right hon. Member for Chingford when he was chairman of the Conservative party in the run-up to the election and to keep the core of ILEA intact.
As a single unitary authority, ILEA has been able to take resources from where they were most available—the City, Westminster and the southern part of Camden and to use them where they were most needed—in many parts of inner London. ILEA has been the single most important agency for equalising opportunities across our great city. That, plus the fact that the electors have consistently placed their confidence in the Labour party to deliver that service, is what lies behind the desperation of the Conservative party now to abolish the authority—an act which The Financial Times of 8 February 1988 described as one of "political spite."
In his statement on 4 February, the Secretary of State said that the Government
attach paramount importance to improving the quality of education received by inner London's children."—[Official Report, 4 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1179.]
Given the Government's record on ILEA and its prospects, those words will be regarded as unctuous and hollow by those who run London's education service and by those who use it. Given the personal assault that the Secretary of State has made upon London's education service, the wonder is not that standards could be better, but that the service has survived at all. The authority has been rate-capped for the past three years with the Secretary of State in complete control of is budget and, if he chose to exercise it, of its manpower.
It does not lie with the Secretary of State to complain about profligacy or overspending. The Secretary of State has set the budget and he has had the power to set the manpower for ILEA for each of the past three years. This year, the Secretary of State, who claims to be so concerned about education standards in London, is seeking to ensure that there is a cut of £100 million in ILEA's budget. ILEA is to be evicted from the headquarters that it has occupied since 1922. In an act wilfully designed to destabilise the authority, and demoralise the staff, the Secretary of State


engineered to poach ILEA's chief officer for a position for which Parliament had not even given approval. Now, in the interests—as he says—of higher standards, the Secretary of State is to dismantle the London service and pass it over to individual boroughs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) explained, in the exchanges on the statement, that it is a supreme irony that the Government, after years of mindless abuse of London boroughs, should hold up the councils as paradigms of administrative virtue, ready and willing to do the Secretary of State's bidding.
I have made it clear that the Labour party, unlike this Government, will not play politics with other people's children—[Interruption.] Every decision that we make will be taken with only one interest in mind—that of London's children. The simple reality is that London boroughs face social and economic problems on a scale almost without parallel in the rest of the United Kingdom. The boroughs in greatest need are rate-capped. No council has a mandate to run education, and all the councils will face, as the Secretary of State made clear, additional upheaval that will coincide with the transfers involved in the Secretary of State's other inventions—namely, the introduction of the poll tax and the uniform business rate.
Is it any wonder that the morale of staff in schools, colleges or administration will plummet? Is it any wonder that good people—possibly the best people—will follow the example set by the Secretary of State and Mr. Stubbs and seek to further their careers elsewhere? Is it any wonder that the positive progress to raise standards, which has followed the Hargreave and Thomas reports and which was well documented in the minute from the senior chief inspector, may be stopped in its tracks and that the view of many sober observers is that London will be lucky if standards of education and administration remain intact between now and any transfer in 1990?
No wonder the HMI report to the Secretary of State damned the policy. It stated that the question whether the shift to the boroughs would lead to higher or lower standards was "an open question." Is it any wonder that the respected editor of The Times Educational Supplement, Mr. Stuart Maclure, believes that education standards may be damaged for five years or that the Conservative Education Association has dismissed the proposals as "essentially spiteful and negative"?
The Secretary of State is taking a massive gamble with the education of other people's children through his decision to abolish ILEA. He would not take that gamble with his own children. If the education of 270,000 children is put at risk and damaged, the responsibility will lie not with the parents, the boroughs, the teachers or ILEA, but with the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State sought today, as he did on 4 February, to take comfort from the relative ease, as he claimed, with which the transfer of the GLC to other bodies took place two years ago. On 4 February he said:
when I was dealing with the abolition of the GLC I was constantly told that the London boroughs could not do it." —[Official Report, 4 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 1184.]
Again the Secretary of State re-writes history. The fact is that the London boroughs did not do it. The abolition of the GLC involved only minimal devolution of services to the boroughs. The overwhelming majority were kept intact. Only the administrative arrangements for overall political control were changed.
The Secretary of State deludes himself if he believes that the abolition of the GLC provides any easy parallel for the problems that he is forcing on the boroughs. For example, London Transport was not split up and handed over to the boroughs. It was nationalised and placed under central control. The fire service was not handed over to the boroughs. It was kept intact and made subject to a joint board. Arts provision was transferred to the South Bank board and the Arts Council. Indeed, ILEA took on many central services at considerable expense. For example, it took on architects and the provision of supplies that it had previously obtained from the GLC. Of the 42 major functions that were transferred, 32 —or 75 per cent.—were not transferred to the boroughs. All the major services were transferred to joint boards or quangos.
Once the GLC had lost housing and transport, it did not run any personal service. There is no more direct or personal service than education. The parallel with the abolition of the GLC, as the Secretary of State is aware, is nonsense. In his statement on 4 February and in his speech today, he betrayed his own nervousness and lack of conviction that what he is doing is right when, by his own admission, he said that many of ILEA's services, including perhaps adult further special education, cannot be run properly by the boroughs and will need cross-borough joint board arrangements. I am sure that he will discover that such arrangements will be needed for schools in many of the boroughs.
No Education Minister in recent years has made more of the rhetoric of parent power than the Secretary of State. We were told that great consultations were held on the details of his education proposals, including proposals for the future of ILEA. There were promises that the Government would only proceed by "broad agreement". However, the proposals that we are considering today have not been submitted to any test of popular will. They have not been tested by a general election, borough election or by-election. If the Secretary of State means what he says about parent power, will he back the London Parent Governors' suggestion for a consultative ballot on the proposals? Or is the truth that, like everything else the Secretary of State professes to believing, his subscription to parent power is just skin deep and that the clear views of parents are to be cast aside whenever they get in the way of the leviathan of the Secretary of State?
Unless the Secretary of State is very lucky or very careful—or both—the only political epitaph that he will earn is "this man wrecked London's education". The proposals are without a mandate, without popular support and without reason. They will place the education of 270,000 children seriously at risk. The proposals must be opposed in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first of the Back-Bench speakers, may I say that there is great pressure on this debate. When we previously debated this subject, many hon. Members were disappointed because of the length of speeches. I appeal for brief speeches today.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Everyone who has listened to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will have recognised a fluency of delivery, a recollection of statistics and a reference to quotation that one would expect from someone so deeply immersed in the subject. That is what we would expect from a former deputy leader


of ILEA. He has covered the ground thoroughly from the point of view that he represents. His right hon. and hon. Friends would acknowledge that he has made a formidable and even overwhelming and unanswerable case. However, there is a small lacuna in his argument. When my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked whether the logic of the overwhelming case was that ILEA would be restored by the Labour party if it ever came to government, there was no answer.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: The reality is known to us all. We know that many people behind the hon. Member for Blackburn in the Labour party know that the Government's decision is right and—

Ms. Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: They will welcome that precisely as they welcomed the break up—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way. He has only just started to speak.

Mr. Heseltine: They will welcome that precisely as they welcomed the break-up of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. There is no way in which the Labour party will restore ILEA, the GLC or the metropolitan counties because Labour Members know that power concentrated in unitary authorities in urban districts is the most effective way to achieve accountability and the effective management of services.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman knows, for the reasons that I have explained, that it is impossible to give a commitment about what will be contained in a Labour party manifesto four years before a general election. However, if it is any comfort to him, I believe that the case for a unitary education authority for inner London is unassailable and I will argue that with great conviction when we come to discuss what should be in the manifesto.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party is making commitments left, right and centre about all manner of national policy without let or hindrance. Yet when it comes to a real decision about real education, Labour Members cannot make up their minds what to do.

Ms. Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way.
No one participating in a debate about the education of London's children disputes the gravity of the problem. The issue is not about the scale of the problem; it is about the right way to address the solution. I hope to argue that, in getting rid of ILEA—a move on which, naturally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend—the Government have a unique opportunity that will not only provide a framework within which to address the educational problems of inner London but, equally important, lay the foundations for a far more relevant and effective framework for London's inner administrative local government services.
I share, as must everyone, my right hon. Friend's judgments about the overspending and misuse of ILEA's resources, and about the inadequacy of results. I must add, however, that in urging the end of ILEA I recognise—as did my right hon. Friend—the value of much of the contribution that has been, and is being, made by those who work for ILEA, Whichever route my right hon. Friend adopts, as he has made clear, the majority of teachers and administrators who work in the new structure will in practice be the same as those currently employed by ILEA. In all that we do and discuss in the House, it would be as well to remember that. There is no great untapped reservoir of talent to which we can turn to man London's education system.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many teachers are attracted into ILEA because of the resources available and the professional standards, and that they will not necessarily be interested in going into the boroughs and will therefore go elsewhere?

Mr. Heseltine: I understand the argument about teachers being attracted in, but I am equally aware of the larger argument about their being attracted out. That is the heart of the problem. Part of the difficulty that we face is the crisis of recruitment and retention of good teachers in inner London, and a huge trans-London authority, which, far from providing a means to an easier solution, has actually made the solution more difficult.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No. Mr. Speaker has clearly asked us not to take longer than is necessary. There has been a huge number of interruptions, and time has gone very fast; so, if the House will forgive me, I shall not give way.
ILEA's policy of trying to attract teachers by widening the support services for them has neither solved the shortage nor improved the education standards. Having said that, however, I do not believe that education standards will be addressed as long as a small minority of teachers can hold back the efforts of the large majority by hiding behind the virtual impossibility of removing teachers from posts for which they are not suited. That, of course, is a problem that affects our education service nationally, and not just in London.
In approaching the issue of ILEA, the first question we must deal with is the proper role of central Government. No one in the House seeks to transfer to central Government all responsibility for the day-to-day running of state sector schools, but what is at the heart of my right hon. Friend's legislation—and rightly so—is the belief that central Government must recognise, openly and more directly, their responsibility for the standards of education. That is not in any way inconsistent with a delegation of wider responsibility and choice to parents, teachers and governors locally. They should play—[Interruption.]

Mr. Holland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No. [Interruption] I have made it quite clear that I shall not give way.
The essence of the Government's case, which I strongly support, is that all the people involved locally —teachers, governors and parents—should play a bigger role in the provision of education, while the Secretary of State plays a bigger role in insisting on the standards of education. The Opposition ignore at their peril the wide demand in the nation for people locally to play a much


bigger part in the life that they lead and the services that they enjoy. It is at the heart of the Government's policy to build on that instinct.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, throughout ILEA, every parents' organisation is opposed to the break-up? Polls of every school show that parents are opposed to it, and to the effect that it will have on their particular schools. Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree to abide by the results of the parents' poll, which will almost certainly show an overwhelming majority against the break-up of ILEA?

Mr. Heseltine: I find it fascinating that, if there is such overwhelming public support, the party that is prepared to adopt any issue with a populist ring about it is not even prepared to give a commitment to restore ILEA when it has the chance.
The essential difference between the two sides of the House is that Conservative Members are trying to remove power from the centre and to put it into the hands of the people of this country. To make that possible, the Government are rightly insisting on the need for a basic curriculum, with much tougher testing and inspection. But teachers and heads will take over the management of their schools, and governors, and especially parents, will take on new responsibilities. There will be a greater variety of provision, within the state sector. The prospects now exist—as it is very desirable that they should—for city technology colleges, opted-out state schools and open enrolment, all of which will increase the discretion and accountability of parents for the education of their children. That educational provison will take place in a far more rigorously monitored and competitive environment.
I believe that the House will overwhelmingly support my right hon. Friend in seeing this as the right balance between a range of choice in the provision of education driven by local authority power, parental power, industrial power and teacher power and the workings, in partnership with those interests, of a central Government who see it as their duty to insist on and promote higher standards. Central Government should not—and our Government do not seek to—administer the institutions themselves, but they point to the need to place the power as close as possible to the people, and they argue the need to create local authority organisations that are effective and accountable.
The next stage of the debate must be to discuss the role of local government. It is as much the responsibility of central Government to ensure that local authorities are able to carry out their responsibilities effectively as it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend to insist on proper education standards. Indeed, my right hon. Friend cannot properly carry out his specific education responsibility if the Government of whom he is a member fail to ensure that local authorities are capable of administering all the other local authority services.
That brings us to the heart of the ILEA debate. I have always been appalled by the argument that ILEA is essential because the inner London boroughs are not capable of administering an education service. If they are not capable—[Interruption.] It has been widely said,

and is one of the most significant arguments used to defend ILEA, that the inner London boroughs cannot be trusted. I find that argument wholly unacceptable.

Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend find it interesting that the one report that the Labour party does not mention, the report by the only independent commission on London's government, the Herbert Commission, said quite categorically that education should be in the hands of the inner London boroughs and not in the hands of a unitary authority?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes the point very clearly.
There has been wide debate about ILEA for a long time, and one of the arguments always produced to defend it is that one cannot trust the inner London boroughs. That is a totally unacceptable argument. If those inner London boroughs are too small, too badly managed, too short of resources and too politically extreme, the logic is that we should not tolerate the mismanagement of inner London's housing, planning, refuse collection, social services, urban regeneration and a host of other services. That is the logic of the argument that says that the inner London boroughs are not up to being education authorities.
Within a year we shall face exactly the same debate that is now taking place over ILEA when, one hopes, the Griffiths report recommends the transfer of large parts of community care from the central Health Service to local government. Again we shall have to face the problem that these same London boroughs will be deemed inadequate for their widened opportunities.
In working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to persuade the Government to go down the path that we are debating, I attach considerable priority to the need to persuade the Government not just to end ILEA but, more important, to address the issue of the fundamental weakness of some of the inner London boroughs. Those boroughs are not unimportant or incidental to our national life. They have too much power, affect the lives of too many people, determine the quality of too many public services, operate too ineffectively and waste too much public money for it to be any longer tolerable for central Government to wash their hands of the quality of the services that those boroughs provide.
Central Government should insist upon three fundamental changes. First, they should insist on the break-up of ILEA and the Griffiths report should be seen as a unique opportunity to establish powerful and effective local authorities in inner London. To achieve this, central Government must positively assert their determination as a partner in the endeavour, both by insisting on quality within the services and by demanding value for money for the taxpayers' funds upon which those authorities totally depend.
The Government must address the arguments about the size of these authorities. If they are too small and too weak they should be joined together, not by joint boards that will simply gloss over the structural weakness, but by the fusion of two or more of the authorities.
Next, central Government should insist that each authority has a proper management structure and that the posts within the structure are filled. For example, it is quite unacceptable that today neither Camden nor Lambeth have directors of finance. I see no objection in principle to


legislature changes to bring the practices in local government into line with those of central Government. We could make councillors responsible for the proper discharge of local authority functions, including the recruitment of qualified officials.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not a Second Reading debate, but a debate on a motion that refers exclusively to the Inner London education authority. Many Opposition Members wonder whether it is in order for the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to crowd them out by taking up the time that they want to devote to talking about inner London's children. Rather, we are having to listen to speeches that are clearly bids for the leadership of the Tory party.

Mr. Speaker: I called the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and it is in order for any hon. Member to speak if he is called by the Chair. But he might bear in mind that time is getting on.

Mr. Heseltine: It is perfectly legitimate to be sure, when one is taking a major stand by breaking up the Inner London education authority, that one is responsible in speaking about the authorities to which its powers are to be transferred. It is not enough for the House simply to say that it will break up that education authority and leave a range of weak authorities to which it will be transferred. It is at the heart of our responsibility to ensure that we do this job effectively.
As I have said, I see no objection in principle to legislative changes to bring the practices in local government into line with those in central Government. We could make councillors responsible for the proper discharge of local authority functions, including the recruitment of qualified officials. It would be a simple step for the Audit Commission to have to satisfy itself that the proper steps to ensure the recruitment of the appropriate officials had been taken. No central Government Minister can ignore the power of the accounting officers in his Department, the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee. I have no doubt that if we brought into line the responsibilities of local government to fill the posts upon which adequate services depend, it would be a significant change.
I realise the problems of recruiting people to inner London boroughs, and I see no objection at all to making arrangements for specific grants from central Government to help underprivileged authorities in the recruitment of appropriate, experienced staff. It follows that the local authorities cannot be permitted to frustrate the proper appointment of executives of quality and experience in order to conform to the whim of serried ranks of committees that examine the qualities of people applying for official jobs against a whole range of standards about their approach to racism or sexism or whatever it may be, but which have nothing whatever to do with their ability to keep the financial records of the authorities.
Finally, we must make it clear to the handful of local authorities seeking confrontation that central Government is not without alternatives in this matter. Increasingly, central Government, waking up to their latent responsibilities, are insisting on a wider choice of instruments for the provision of public services. The housing associations now provide competition for local

authority housing departments. Urban development corporations can provide a rival means of securing urban regeneration. The need for local authorities to put their services out to competitive tender ensures a much more thrusting quest for value for money.
In all these things, local authorities are finding that central Government are insisting upon quality of service. There is no reason why, in coming to arrangements for the distribution of taxpayers' funds, central Government should not insist upon a specific agreement with individual local authorities about the way in which those funds will be used and the quality of services that will be delivered. There is no question that if central Government took a more positive role in the distribution of funds, many authorities would queue up to get a larger share of the available resources. Local authorities have a perfectly legitimate choice. They can decide whether they want to administer the funds that the taxpayer contributes or whether they are content to see central Government distribute those funds to other agencies that will deliver the quality and the value for money for which the Secretary of State is calling.
The essence of the debate is that the House has to make a simple judgment. It is whether we are prepared to place our trust in the concept of powerful inner-London authorities. Frankly, very few of those authorities merit such trust. Year after year the House has diverted taxpayers' funds to those authorities without insisting upon the quality of the services that they should deliver. That is an abdication of the responsibility of Parliament. If the Government now grasp the opportunities to create powerful and responsible authorities, the demise of ILEA will be viewed with as little concern as the demise of the GLC and the metropolitan counties.

Mr. Peter Shore: It was right that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) should be called early in the debate because he is the co-architect and author of this proposal to abolish ILEA. It was interesting to contrast the assurance of his speech, which was based on ignorance, with the diffidence of the Secretary of State, whose speech was based on some knowledge. Clearly, one cannot afford to be so cavalier if one knows something about the needs of inner London and the problems with which the children and people there are faced.
The right hon. Member tried to turn the debate and this vandalistic proposal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) described it, into a defence of local democracy. I must say I find that rich. If the right hon. Gentleman had any faith in democracy, he would have backed the proposal for a test of democratic opinion before ILEA was abolished. As he must know, ILEA is unique among education authorities because it is composed of directly elected members who have no other function. They are there because people have voted for them to conduct ILEA's affairs. So much for the advance of democracy.
What the right hon. Gentleman said about strengthening the functions and capabilities of small inner-London boroughs so that they can take on these functions was impertinent. When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Environment he did more than anyone else to weaken and undermine the resources available to inner-London boroughs. He began the process


of taking away major planning functions from London boroughs. That was most evident in the docklands area, where he set up the London Docklands development corporation to take power away from the boroughs that he so deeply distrusted. That same right hon. Gentleman reduced, almost to desperation, the funds available for housing programmes and other services in inner London. We do not need to take the right hon. Gentleman very seriously.
We must confront the arguments and proposals put forward by the Secretary of State, who has now left the Chamber and run for cover. He has failed to produce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) showed, a serious or argued case for the demolition of ILEA or for the transfer of its functions to 12 inner-London boroughs. I do not think that he even tried. He seems to be content in the knowledge that he has more troops than us, even though the strength of his vote in the Lobby will be in inverse ratio to the strength of the argument that he advanced.
As an inner-London Member of Parliament, what fills me with disgust—my hon. Friends will share these feelings—is that the educational future and life chances of 280,000 children have been put at risk. Until what is being done can be undone, they and succeeding cohorts of the young will be grievously disadvantaged by what the Government are doing.
The Government have sought to base their case, as they did last Wednesday, on what they call—the motion says this in so many words—
the persistent failure to raise standards of education in its schools
and the alleged "profligate overspending" of ILEA. To advance that case, the Secretary of State has done a hatchet job on ILEA. When he quoted the only piece of evidence available to him—that ILEA ranks 86th among LEAs in the league table—he had not even the basic intellectual honesty—he knows better than to use crude examination statistics to prove a point—to place it in the context of the other serious adjusted studies of educational performance that have been published twice by Sheffield university and which are available from other sources.
I know of no serious educationist who would claim that crude examination results are a valid test of the value and quality of an education service. The fact that the borough of Harrow performs two or three times better than ILEA says more about the social background and class composition of the Harrow population than it does about the quality of education in that borough.
It is simply illiterate to attempt to judge one authority against another by examination results without taking into account the social background of its pupils. I am particularly aware of that—I wish that the Secretary of State was present to hear this—as no fewer than 44 per cent. of pupils attending schools in Tower Hamlets are from Bengali families. Bengali is their mother tongue, and a substantial proportion of pupils in schools in that borough came to the United Kingdom only in the past 10 years. It is not serious to make a comparison between examination results at 0-level of pupils in my borough with those who are resident in Harrow, Bromley, Bexley or elsewhere.
The Secretary of State knows very well—we willingly concede this point—that ILEA's performance, while certainly capable of improvement, does not justify its

annihilation. The Guardian was good enough to inform us that the Secretary of State received a 12-page report less than a fortnight ago, from which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn quoted earlier, from Mr. Eric Bolton, who is his senior chief inspector. The burden of what the chief inspector said has been put to the House, but I shall quote two points because they are relevant to the argument that I am advancing that a case against ILEA cannot be based on crude examination results.
Mr. Bolton said:
The ILEA, covering as it does the whole of Central London, has to confront a range of social problems, including large-scale homelessness, whose concentration and severity make for what is generally accepted as a unique combination of difficulties.
He notes—this is directly relevant to the Secretary of State's use of crude examination statistics—that when ILEA's examination results at 16 years are statistically adjusted for socio-economic factors, it
appears to perform up to expectation.
If that is a case for getting rid of ILEA, I cannot recognise it in the language and report of the Secretary of State's senior inspector.
The Secretary of State put forward a second and equally spurious reason for getting rid of ILEA the high cost of education in inner London. I need make only two points because my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn gave the House the truth of the matter when he drew attention to the obvious high cost of all services in inner London—not only those in the public sector, but those in the private sector. Many institutions and companies have had to leave inner London because the costs are so high or because they have difficulty in recruiting people of adequate capability to perform the services that they require.
When the Minister, on 4 February, first presented his statement of intent to abolish ILEA I asked him how he could possibly justify the transfer of education to inner-London boroughs when he and all his colleagues, including the Prime Minister, have nothing but contempt for the administrative capacity and political judgment of the authorities concerned. The Government have decided that inner-London authorities are not competent to run their housing services—hence the Housing Bill. Many other services must be compulsorily put out to tender in the private sector because councils are not thought to be capable of running them properly. The Government have decided that rates decisions should be taken out of their hands—in many cases by rate capping—and decided by ministerial order.
In reply to my question, the Secretary of State made the simple debating point that he was surprised that I and other inner-London Members had so little confidence in our local Labour councils. The answer to that is twofold. First, it is not Labour Members of Parliament but Ministers who have shown their complete lack of confidence in and their contempt for inner-London councils. Secondly, the progressive and massive cuts in Government grant aid for local government services and for housing in the inner-London boroughs have resulted in falling standards of service and increasing inefficiency in administration.
It is against this background of continued stringency that the Government propose in just over two years that each of the inner London boroughs should set up a separate administration for the provision of education services. Apart from the fact that we are to have 12 mini


education administrations where only one existed previously—anyone who thinks that will be cheaper will have another think coming—the crucial factor will be the amount of money that is made available to the individual boroughs.
Under the inner-London equalisation scheme, the rich boroughs—the City of Westminster, the City of London, Camden, Kensington and Chelsea —contributed heavily to education expenditure in the poor boroughs such as Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Lambeth, Islington, Hammersmith, Greenwich and the rest. Just how important that cross-subsidisation is can be illustrated by my borough of Tower Hamlets. We contribute £40 million in precept to ILEA. We receive in ILEA expenditure some £70 million. Even today, in spite of the substantial pooling of resources that ILEA can undertake, we are nearing crisis in the shortage of teachers and in the lack of primary school places in Tower Hamlets. We are short of 100 primary teachers. We are in the middle of a population explosion, which will mean that the school population will have virtually doubled between 1982 and 1992. A large-scale £16 million building programme for new primary schools is under way. I do not believe that Tower Hamlets will receive from the Secretary of State direct funding of its education service on the scale that it undoubtedly needs.
No doubt the Secretary of State will consider that our special needs are simply evidence of extravagance and overspending, because that has been the Government's whole approach to the question of need and expenditure from the moment they took office. Wherever they have seen above-average expenditure, they have assumed that the cause is profligacy and waste, whereas we have always assumed, rightly, that it is an indicator of greater need. All the social studies that have been made illustrate that we are right and they are not.
In Tower Hamlets, we have not a Labour but a Liberal council. Among its other innovations, in a period of enormous financial stringency it is pushing through a programme of far-reaching decentralisation. Nearly all the borough services will soon be provided, not from the town hall in Patriot square, but from several mini town halls which are being constructed and serviced at great cost. They out-democrat even the right hon. Member for Henley. The chaos in our borough is such that it is literally inconceivable that an adequate education service can be established in two years' time. All this must be well known to the Secretary of State. If not, he should have a word with his colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, who will brief him on the state of administration in Tower Hamlets.
Let me read to the House the views of one of our headmistresses, Sue Gilman, who runs the Cannon Barnet primary school in Spitalfields, where all but one of the 300-odd children are Bengali:
It is already difficult persuading young teachers to stay in Tower Hamlets because of high rents and house prices. But many are attracted by the range of facilities, the scope for promotion, the in-service training that only an organisation the size of ILEA can offer. Children suffer terribly when there is a high turnover of staff and I fear the problem will get much worse if Tower Hamlets is left to recruit its own teachers.
The House and the country should know that the abolition of ILEA has nothing to do with the alleged quest for higher standards of education, for improved

administration or for the necessary reduction of over-costly education services. It was not in the Government's manifesto. It was explicitly rejected by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Sir Keith Joseph. It has not been recommended by any serious impartial group of educationists or academics. It is solely the result of Back-Bench Conservative pressure, led by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the right hon. Member for Henley. Neither of them has had any experience in ILEA. Both are motivated by a crude political desire to punish what they consider to be a wayward, Left authority.
To give in to such pressure is not the way to make serious decisions about the educational future of 280,000 London schoolchildren. It is indeed a recipe for chaos and a disaster for the young people of Tower Hamlets and many young people in other London boroughs.

Mr. John Maples: What is interesting about the two speeches from the Opposition Benches so far is that one would think there was nothing wrong with education in inner London. Apart from a passing reference by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to a little problem with secondary education, as though that was a peripheral activity of ILEA, one would have thought that there was nothing wrong with it.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that the Secretary of State was putting at risk the life chances of the 280,000 children in ILEA. If those children's life chances have been put at risk over the last two years, it has been, first, by the obsession of ILEA with politics, and, secondly, by the incessant strikes which have been promoted, encouraged and comforted at every turn by his party. If anything has damaged the children's chances, it is the strikes that have been taking place in the schools over the last few years.
I will not try to pretend that everything about ILEA is bad. It is not. There are some good things about ILEA.—[Interruption.] It would have been interesting if the right hon. Gentleman had confessed some of the bad things. There are certainly some good things about ILEA. There has been a good deal of deathbed repentance in the last year since its continued existence has been under threat and its leadership has changed.
However, there are many bad things to do with the standards that have been achieved, the expectations that are made of children and the amount of money that has been spent on achieving relatively little. Today I received a letter from a constituent whose daughter is at an ILEA primary school in the constituency. She says:
I am seriously thinking of putting my 74½-year-old daughter into private education. In the 2½ years that she has been in school she has not learnt anything. She learnt more in the private kindergarten when she was aged between 2½ and 4½.
[Interruption.] May I make my speech? Opposition Members will get an opportunity to speak later.
Among the quotations by the hon. Member for Blackburn it would have been interesting to hear him mention Mr. Neil Fletcher, the leader of ILEA, who said that the education service was in chaos and had achieved nothing in educational terms. It would have been interesting to hear a quote from the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate, which said that, after attending 200 ILEA science lessons, the inspectorate rated 40 per


cent. as less than satisfactory and 15 per cent. as appallingly bad. It would have been interesting to hear the hon. Member compare the unit cost of pupil-teacher ratios with Brent. I agree that it is not fair to compare ILEA with Harrow or Barnet, but I think it is reasonable to compare it with Brent. There are similar social conditions; the pupil-teacher ratios are almost the same. Brent achieved slightly better unadjusted examination results. The ILEA unit cost of educating a child at secondary school is one third more than the unit cost in Brent, and it does not even succeed in achieving as much.
The Sheffield study has been widely quoted. For all the money that it has spent, ILEA comes at No. 56 out of 96, after adjustment for social factors. That is hardly the sort of performance that one would have thought was justified by the expenditure. The Sheffield study makes two noticeable points, the first being that there is a substantial correlation between the socio-economic background and examination results. That is undoubtedly true, but it is in danger of becoming an alibi for low expectations. While it is certainly a factor in achievement, Opposition Members should recognise the danger that this has become an excuse and an alibi. As a result, in school less is expected of children from poor homes and working-class backgrounds than of other children.
The second point that emerges from the Sheffield study is that there is no statistical correlation between adjusted examination results and the spending of additional money. That is surely interesting in the context of the fact that ILEA spends so much more.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has made much of the comparison between ILEA and Brent and told us that in the Sheffield study ILEA came 56th. Where did Brent come?

Mr. Maples: It did not do very well either.

Mr. Smith: Give us the number.

Mr. Maples: I will make my own speech. In citing Brent, I sought to make the point that Brent has similar social conditions and the same pupil-teacher ratio, yet spends one third less than ILEA. If I ran ILEA, I would say to myself, "I wonder whether I can achieve the same with one third less."
The acid test is the unit cost of educating a child in a secondary school. In ILEA schools, it is £2,650. The London average is £1,700. But in the average inner-London independent school it is £2,535—less than in ILEA schools. Do Opposition Members think that the average parent of a child in an ILEA school, if given £2,650 and told that he or she could spend it on education where he or she chose, would put the child back into the ILEA school? Would they not opt for one of the independent schools?

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maples: No. I shall finish my speech. The hon. Gentleman has no responsibility for education, and he is interfering in the debate.
Many very good independent schools in inner London charge considerably less than ILEA. I should have thought that, given the choice, the average parent would take it.
My second point on unit costs is that, if the average head teacher of an inner-London school were given £2,650

for every pupil in his school, I would wager a substantial amount that he would achieve considerably more than ILEA achieves.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Maples: No, I will not give way.
I suspect that doing something about education in inner London is the same as doing something about what is wrong with education in the country as a whole. The national reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes are perhaps even more relevant in London than elsewhere. They have nothing to do with who runs education in London; they have much to do with the national curriculum, opting out and financial delegation. My right hon. Friend's proposals on the national curriculum and testing will do just as much, if not more, for standards in inner London as for standards elsewhere. The proposals for financial delegation and opting out will do an enormous amount in inner London, because they will provide diversity and choice and a far more efficient use of resources. Both the national reforms that my right hon. Friend proposes and the structure are crucial to the reform of education in inner London.
I simply cannot accept the argument that inner-London boroughs are not appropriate vehicles for providing education services. Outer-London boroughs do it perfectly satisfactorily—some better than others and some extremely well. The top two areas in the Sheffield study, which Opposition Members are using as their alibi today, are Harrow and Barnet— two outer-London boroughs which provide education services. No doubt some will do it better than others. Some may do it better than ILEA and some not as well. But the fact that they can do it is borne out by the experience of the outer-London boroughs. The boroughs will be closer to the schools and the people involved, the decision-making machinery will be closer to the action, and the authorities, being smaller, should be able to run a more efficient and less bureaucratic service.
One or two points have to be taken into account in making the substantial change from a Londonwide authority to arrangements under which the inner-London boroughs run their own affairs. The first relates to cross-borough services, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred—adult education, special schools and the youth service, music and computer centres and so on. When boroughs were to be allowed to opt out of ILEA, it was fair to assume that they would make the necessary voluntary arrangements to provide such services. However, if we are to break up ILEA, we must ensure that the arrangements are in place and that if we are not satisfied with the voluntary arrangements that the boroughs make there is a mechanism to allow us to insist that the necessary cross-borough arrangements are made.
Secondly, whatever is wrong with ILEA is doubly wrong with one or two London boroughs. ILEA may be profligate and heavily politicised, but the London boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth are more so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Lewisham."] Lewisham comes close. There is concern that some children will be taken out of the frying pan and put into the fire. People question whether their education will be better dealt with by boroughs such as Lambeth and Southwark.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say that one of the remedies that the schools have at their hands is to opt out. No doubt some schools will do


that, but others will not be able to do so, for perfectly good reasons. Some will be too small and for some it will be inappropriate to act as an opted-out service. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he has, or will have, the power to take the necessary action if that happens and he finds that the education plan of an inner-London borough is inadequate, or inadequately put into effect?
When the Bill is enacted and the smoke has settled and the Labour leaders of inner London boroughs who now say that they will defend ILEA to the death come round to the idea that they would quite like to run education in their boroughs after all, it will be important to turn them into willing partners in this exercise. There will be nearly two years left before their responsibilities are put into effect; during that time it will be important to turn them into willing partners.
I make one point specifically relating to my constituency, which contains the Horniman museum. It was given to the people of London—originally to the London county council, then to the Greater London council and then to ILEA. It performs a valuable educational function and it would be totally wrong to transfer it to the borough concerned. There is a good deal of support for the idea that the museum should become a national institution, nationally financed and with nationally appointed trustees so that it can continue to provide an education service to children in schools in the south-east.
The most important ingredient in the improvement of education standards in inner London is the programme of national reforms that my right hon. Friend proposes the national curriculum, testing, opting out, financial delegation, grant-maintained schools and so on. A few factors need to be taken into account. If they are, I believe that we shall end up with a considerably better education service than we have now in most London boroughs. I hope that that will be the outcome.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: We are considering the proposals at a time when children in our schools have had to bear the malign effects of conflict and cuts for far too long. Children in London—especially at secondary level —have suffered more than most from industrial action and political interference from all sides. The introduction of the GCSE—too quickly and with inadequate resources—is adding to their problems. As has already been said, teachers' morale is at an all-time low and the better teachers are decamping in droves, both for financial reasons and because of the political interference in their work. At a time when matters could be starting to stabilise somewhat, our children are being threatened with a further change and a potentially catastrophic period of instability.
I would be the first to agree that ILEA needs reforming, but to abolish it is going too far. It should be replaced with a unitary body for London to provide the high-quality cost-effective education to which our children are entitled. Let us consider what ILEA has done in recent years. We have heard the statistics for the cost per child. Where does the money go? ILEA's own budget document shows that only about 40 per cent. goes on teaching staff; it is nearer to 60 per cent. in most authorities. Administrative costs have risen catastrophically, at a time when the number of pupils and teachers is declining.
I shall quote the words of one of the Government's well-respected chief inspectors, Hargreaves, not from the Hargreaves report but from his recent document on quality:
Within a national context, ILEA secondary schools, when account is taken of intake, perform as a whole at an average level; but the level of resources is higher than anywhere else in the country … Moreover, is an average performance in national terms good enough in the light of the Authority's equal opportunities policy?
Hargreaves continued:
Recently, and by coincidence, I had separate conversations with a member, an inspector and an ILEA head on the same theme. All four of us"—
I share this—
had one common element in our histories: we were working class and attended grammar or direct grant schools. Our parents had limited formal education and no special educational ambitions for us. Our schools however had high expectations for us and pressured us to work hard, raising our aspirations so that we found our way to university. How high was our confidence, we wondered, that our educational histories would be the same had we attended an ILEA comprehensive school of today?
Hon. Members should note that that section was removed before the paper was made public.
This is not a record of which to be proud. I constantly cite the fact that commuter trains into London are full of youngsters from the surrounding shire counties who come in to take those plum jobs that our inner-London children should get. Let us not underestimate the considerable areas of excellence that ILEA has fostered over the years.
As a parent of a child with special needs, I have great reason to be grateful for the provision that my son has as a partially hearing boy. He would have had that provision nowhere else in the country—in fact, nowhere else in the world. There has been a boy in my son's school from a wealthy Nigerian family who were looking for private provision anywhere at any price for their son when he lost his hearing through meningitis. He ended up in the partial hearing unit at Sedgehill school, because there was nowhere better. Although I will criticise ILEA for what it has not done well, I will give credit where credit is due.

Mr. Tracey: I have often listened with interest to what the hon. Lady has said about education, especially reflecting on what happens in her borough. Does she think, on reflection, that Greenwich could work better as a separate education authority than the monster of the ILEA?

Mrs. Barnes: I do not. I shall come to that point.
To pay tribute to another area of excellence, this morning I visited the Thamesside adult education institute, one of 18 in ILEA, offering services during the day and evening. The institute attracts 12,500 people a year, almost two thirds of whom are retired, unemployed, in receipt of benefit or on literacy or English-as-a-second-language courses. Seventy-four per cent. of them are women and 500 children are enrolled in the creches there. The total cost of the institute is £.1.6 million. Of that, less than a quarter comes from Greenwich rates. The institute provides a valuable service, which I suspect will be severely threatened if ILEA's responsibilities are entirely devolved to the boroughs. I am sure that this non-statutory provision will suffer.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I was pleased to hear the hon. Lady pay tribute to the partial hearing unit at Sedgehill school, for which I had responsibility for seven


years. Does she agree—it is important for the Government to realise this—that that unit and others like it must continue and that, as part of the special education provision for London, they will need to continue to take children from other boroughs?

Mrs. Barnes: That is important. Although I live in Greenwich, which is division 6, my son is at school in Lewisham, which is division 7, because of his hearing difficulties. Children from a wide catchment area in London go to the three remaining partial hearing units within ILEA.
Why am I protesting about the break-up of ILEA, in spite of my reservations about it? As a London Member, with first-hand experience of how the boroughs have coped with services of such critical importance to people's lives as housing, I am totally dismayed at the prospect of them having control of my children's education. What happened when housing benefit was transferred? Some boroughs are still dealing with the vast backlog of several years ago, with what was a fairly simple procedure compared with transferring the whole of an eduction service. The prospects of inefficiency, bureaucracy and politicisation are frightening. There is no evidence that children will receive a better standard of education within the control of the London boroughs than they would within a unitary authority. If anyone thinks that children might, they should spend some time in the boroughs and see what happens.
I am not the only one who has reservations about the London boroughs. One of the Minister's closest colleagues, the Secretary of State for the Environment, recently said:
Labour's loony left Council leaders are behaving like Eastern Bloc Commissars, ruling people by fear.

Mr. Holland: Do not spoil it. It was a good speech.

Mrs. Barnes: I shall put this straight. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Town Halls founded on civic dignity have become an arena for aggressive political posing, disruption, wild accusations, threats and fear".
If a Government have in their inner echelons someone with those beliefs, how can that same Government think that those boroughs can improve education standards?
Let us take a more impartial view, from the Audit Commission's document "The Management of London Authorities: Preventing the Breakdown of Services", in January 1987:
large parts of London appear set on precisely the course which will lead to financial and management breakdown.
The Government have gone to extraordinary lengths to eliminate what they see as the profligacy and irresponsibility of ILEA, yet by their own arguments they are handing education straight to the local authorities which the Government have so readily and so consistently condemned. Giving control of education to those councils which are already mishandling and mismanaging housing and social services is an absurd triumph of myopic dogmatism over the consumers' interests. They are the people with whom we must be concerned—the children, the young people and the adults who are in receipt of education provided by London.
Education will not be improved by being kicked around from one authority to another. The Government should look at how the management of a London unitary education authority can be improved, and how it should

be made more representative. There is ultimately only one way to make local authorities more representative—proportional representation. The case for it is, if anything, stronger at local level than at national level. It would end extremism at a stroke.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend and political neighbour accept that, if the Government and ILEA had adopted proportional representation before, ILEA would not be facing abolition now?

Mrs. Barnes: I agree with that absolutely. If standards and quality are what the debate is about—and I applaud that—let us consider what the London branch of the National Association of Head Teachers recommends. It recommends an expert task force under an independent chairman to decide on the format of a unitary body. The association defends the idea of a unitary body in its document, not ILEA as it is now. There is a strong suggestion that the 58-person committee of politicians has been inept and indecisive, and perhaps, in some ways, that is not a bad thing. Had they been able to make decisions, we might have been in an even worse mess.
Let us also consider the idea floated in The Economist, which is not usually a bastion of Left-wing thought. It suggests a I2-member board, with each member being elected for four years on a staggered basis so that there is some continuity. I am making suggestions about how a unitary body, quite different from ILEA, could be conceived. All I ask is that we give proper thought to what will improve standards and quality of education, and that we do not jump, as we are doing now, from the frying pan into the fire.

Mr. William Shelton: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have the power to do as she suggested, if he so wished, under the 1944 Act. He could appoint a committee comprising a non-political group of people—including most of his friends, I hope—to run education. However, I do not think that is likely.
Either ILEA must stay or it must go. I want to refute the notion that we keep hearing to the effect that this is a political attack. I was the chief whip of ILEA 20 years ago. Then I moved across the river to the House, and even then, in 1970, my first machinations and discussions were directed to seeing how we could get rid of ILEA. It was a far better organisation in those days than it is today, but I wanted to get rid of it then because I thought that it was too big and remote. The William Tyndale school would never have come about if it had been run by local councils. Indeed, hon. Members may recall some discussion about breaking ILEA into four.
I shall not conceal from the House the fact that, in the run-up to the 1983 election, when there was some discussion about including the break-up of ILEA in the manifesto, my valour was tempered by the thought of facing my Streatham constituents and telling them that Mr. Ted Knight would be controlling the education of their children.

Mr. Holland: What did the hon. Gentleman decide to do?

Mr. Shelton: The question did not arise, as it was not included in the election manifesto, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
How is it that I can now support my right hon. Friend's proposals wholeheartedly?

Mr. Simon Hughes: Just to ensure that the hon. Gentleman is fair when comparing his views in 1983 with his views now, can he tell his constituents now that he is happy that education in Lambeth will be run by Miss Linda Bellos and her colleagues, which is what the Government propose?

Mr. Shelton: That is going to be the burden of part of my speech.
I shall give four reasons why I am now perfectly happy that ILEA should be abolished. The first will be understood by men of good sense, and by the Opposition. It is clear that at least three, and probably four or five or more, boroughs would have opted out of ILEA, so there is no way in which ILEA could have proceeded. That must be common sense to anyone who lives in London and knows ILEA's education service. From that point of view, there is no choice. So this is a sensible decision.
Secondly, as I said a moment ago, ILEA is a far worse organisation now than it was when I was its chief whip. I do not want to go through all the figures on spending again, but ILEA spends considerably more per capita than places such as Bradford, Manchester and Sheffield. Some hon. Members asked about private schools. ILEA spends considerably more than Putney high school and James Allen's school for girls, which are both good schools. Hon. Members can take it from me that ILEA has been letting down London's children, who are at risk under ILEA. It has also been ripping off London's ratepayers—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Shelton: If I may proceed a moment longer, the hon. Gentleman may be fortunate later.
The hon. Member for Greenwich mentioned administration. I understand that ILEA spends £55 per pupil on administration, while Bradford spends only £15.

Mr. Holland: Bradford has only one-sixth of the density.

Mr. Shelton: Two years ago I was reading through CIPFA, which makes excellent reading for anyone interested in education. I have always had a fondness for ILEA, and I was delighted to see that it spent more than any other authority in the country on school meals. I thought, "At least, they get a jolly good lunch." In the small print I discovered that ILEA spent almost the least in the country on food and by far the most on administration. So perhaps ILEA's pupils are being well served, but they are not getting much to eat.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Shelton: I shall not go through the exam results figures again, except to say that, even after they have been massaged, ILEA, which spends the most, comes out only halfway up the academic list, so something is wrong somewhere.
As for ILEA's loony policies, that business about non-competitive sport was nonsense— a fact that has now been recognised. But how long did it continue before it was recognised?
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about Lambeth. The Education

Reform Bill has certain safeguards that did not exist in 1983, and they have been listed already. They include a national curriculum, more open enrolment, financial delegation and opting out if it becomes necessary, and if the parents vote so to do; and Lambeth will give the local service that I wanted 20 years ago for London's education. It will have local councillors, for many of whom I have a high regard. I have a high regard for officials in division 9. I know them well. That acquaintance, together with the safeguards in the Bill, reassures me.
It is true that one must be wary of Lambeth—especially of its leadership. Lambeth was described in an editorial in The Times a week or two ago as being—among other boroughs—a by-word
for political extremism, bloody-mindedness, incompetence.
That may well be true. Three Lambeth councillors were elected to ILEA, all of whom were disqualified and surcharged under the reign of Mr. Knight for making an illegal rate. So the differences between ILEA and Lambeth are very small.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples), with whose speech I agreed, I want to make a few pleas to my right hon. Friend. First, I ask that the boroughs in 1990 should not inherit any of the vast overhead costs of ILEA, because, if they have to accept responsibility for the redundancies, or the rent for county hall, they will do badly. They must start with a clean sheet, and the residuary body must have enough funding to take care of the backlog of expenses.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend should give continuing thought to the fact that certain Labour boroughs may not co-operate much. I do not know to what extent he can seek some sort of compulsory timetable and specify particular positions in local authorities and place responsibilities on them. I fear that, unless he does that, he may not get the co-operation that is so much needed.
Thirdly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said, the cross-borough boundary traffic—adult and further education, youth, career and special needs—is vital. I have little concern about primary education, and secondary education can only be improved; but ILEA does well for the non-statutory bodies. We must look after them carefully, because it is essential to maintain and foster them.
There has been a campaign, which I strongly support, to regularise the position of Morley college. That must be done. Lambeth has three excellent special schools which feed a large area, including outer London, and adult education is shifting more and more into job training, which is important. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his powers, should it become necessary, to set up joint education committees to look after such cross-borough traffic and to avoid duplication, maintain the organisations and soothe ruffled feelings in the various boroughs involved. It will be difficult for a borough to run only one further education college without cross-borough help.

Mr. Spearing: This is something on which the hon. Gentleman and I wholly agree. Did he notice that, in respect of the 500,000 London citizens who go to further education colleges and the many pupils who go to special schools, whereas in the first statement the Secretary of State said that he would do just what the hon. Gentleman is asking for, and which I would like, today he carefully avoided any such reference?

Mr. Shelton: My right hon. Friend is a sensible and farseeing man. I am sure that he will accept both my advice and that given by the hon. Gentleman.
My next point is technical, but important. It concerns recoupment of these non-statutory bodies. It is now done on national average costs. It would be better if this were done on actual costs, but it would not be possible because so many people are involved and there would have to be massive computers working it out, which would waste time and money. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider establishing an inner London average cost on which recoupment can be based when there is cross-borough boundary trade on adult, special or any other provisions. The inner London average would avoid certain boroughs planning to build walls against that trade because they are not receiving sufficient to cover the costs of the services that they are giving. I am thinking especially of Wandsworth which provides services for adult education in Lambeth. I would hate Wandsworth to discriminate against Lambeth residents because they did not carry with them adequate costs when they used a service in Wandsworth.
After 20 years of mixed feelings about ILEA, although I have always liked and had regard for it, I am glad that it will soon be abolished.

Ms. Diane Abbott: If the terms of this motion are implemented in the Education Reform Bill, they will put the educational future of over 250,000 of London's children into limbo, and limbo is possibly the most positive thing that I can foresee. We do not know what will happen to the infant schools, to the secondary schools, to the non-statutory services such as evening classes, access classes or polytechnics, nursery classes, discretionary grants, career services or youth work, as a result of the Government's move.
Why are we being asked to put the future of so many children at risk? First, there is no doubt that abolishing ILEA will save money for businesses, because 73 per cent. of ILEA's funding comes from business ratepayers, over half of them in the City.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms. Abbott: With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that I have only just begun. Perhaps he will allow me to develop my argument.
If one cuts through all the cant from the Secretary of State and Conservative Members, one sees that abolishing ILEA will save their friends in the City money. For over 118 years, London businesses have helped to fund a unified education service in London. That honourable tradition, whereby business and wealthy areas provide a decent education for all our children, is being broken.
Secondly, the abolition of ILEA is of a piece with the holy war that the Government are conducting against any democratic institution which happens to be controlled by the Labour party. Their claims of principle and about parental choice, the consumer and the interests of children go out the window when they are presented with the opportunity to smash an institution whose electors vote in a Labour majority time after time.
The third reason for this extraordinary gamble is a sordid reason, so I will mention it only briefly. It is that

the future of Hackney's children and over 250,000 children in inner London has become caught up in a nasty, squalid battle for political success in the Conservative party. It is a disgrace that, because of some temporary manoeuvring, shuffling, alliances and misalliances between the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the Secretary of State, the educational future of children in London is put in jeopardy.
Conservative Members have referred to ILEA's flaws and problems. However, I put this to the Secretary of State. If his ministerial car developed a fault, would he take a sledgehammer to it and smash it up? The answer to the problems in ILEA is not to dismantle it in this way, which runs contrary to professional, educational and parental opinion and to the interests of the children.
We have heard, and no doubt will hear all evening, about the costs of ILEA to London. Conservative Members refuse to accept that everything in London is more expensive. The Metropolitan police force costs twice as much as comparative police forces. That is because London is sui generis. One cannot compare the costs of running a London institution, whether it is education, the police, or social services, to costs in areas outside London. There are the costs of living, housing and transport. Those financial comparisons are fundamentally tendentious and dishonest, and they do a great disservice to Conservative Members.
Hackney parents are asking me questions which I shall now put to the Secretary of State. They are asking when they will be asked for their view. They say, "We heard in the election campaign and we hear week in and week out about parental choice, but when will we be asked about our choice?" They do not believe that their children's future should rest on the whim of the right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley; they want a say. This measure was never in the manifesto. The Tories could not have won seats in inner London with this in the manifesto. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) is just one Conservative Member who will lose his seat —[Interruption.] I will see only some hon. Gentlemen in four years' time. Hackney parents ask me, "What is all this about parental choice? When will we have a say?"
Hackney parents are also saying, "We understand that Hackney pays £33 million into ILEA and that it receives £93 million from ILEA. Where will the missing £60 million come from?" It is one thing to talk about parental choice, giving power to parents and ILEA failing children, but how will my borough manage with a £60 million shortfall? Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that poor boroughs such as mine will not be a penny worse off as a result of abolition? We in Hackney want to know where our £60 million will come from. Is the Secretary of State content to see Hackney's children's future go down the drain because of intra-party manoeuvring between himself, the right hon. Member for Chingford and the right hon. Member for Henley?
I have listened to the debate with great interest. and two things are clear. My borough is one of the poorest in London and will be one of the worst hit by abolition. It also has a high proportion of young people. Conservative Members tell us about the value of accountancy. We hear about unit costs, cost-effectiveness, cash flows, and balancing books, but we hear little about the values that should underlie a decent national education service, about keeping faith with parents, about the historic role of ILEA


as an engine of social equality and about giving poor children like mine in Hackney a chance. We hear all about the values of accountancy and ledger books, and nothing about social and community values, continuity, and keeping faith with parents and children. First and foremost, it is clear that this measure is all about the value of accountancy.
The second thing that has been made clear this afternoon from speeches and remarks of Conservative Members and the Secretary of State—and it was clear when the Secretary of State made his original statement—is the fathomless contempt that they have for the people of inner London and their children. That is based on ignorance. The Secretary of State has never been to an inner-London school, he will not visit them, he does not send his children there and nor do his friends. Theirs is fathomless contempt based on ignorance.
I put it to the House that the Government will pay dearly for playing ducks and drakes with the future of the children of inner London. Unless the Government give an absolute commitment that the poor boroughs will not lose financially, the hollowness of their talk about parental choice, standards and caring for children will be made clear. Without the money which time out of mind has been redistributed from the wealthy to the poor in inner London, what are my children in Hackney to look forward to and what are boroughs such as Hackney to do? I urge the House to oppose this motion.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall be brief, which is more than some other hon. Members have been, so that as many hon. Members as possible can speak.
I worked for 13 years as a headmaster in ILEA. The old London school board was well respected throughout the world and the old LCC education committee was well respected throughout England. Indeed, when I started teaching, if one got a London first appointment, which was called an LF A— —[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will listen, they might learn something to their advantage. The LCC education committee gave LFAs, which meant that one could come from the length and breadth of the country. At that time, people from all over the world came to see, not just the schools, but the standard of education in London. I worked for four years under the old LCC education committee with no political interference and in high standard schools, until we came under ILEA.
It must be said that ILEA has never won the reputation that the LCC education committee had. —[Interruption.] It has not. It is clear from seeing it, from what people say and from where applications come from.

Mr. Clive Soley: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Sir Rhodes Boyson: No, I am not giving way, not even to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for whom I have great respect. I sometimes wonder why, but I always finish up with the same respect for him. I am answering some of the questions that have been raised.
At that time, applications to the old LCC came from all over the country, but since ILEA there has been a

shortage of teachers, despite good conditions and pay. [Interruption.] Obviously, what I am saying is hurting, but the truth always hurts. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I felt chastened under the attack.
There are three reasons why ILEA has fallen apart and why this measure can pass today, ILEA will disappear and in five years' time people will see it as the remnants of history.
The first reason is the teacher militancy which swept in from 1968. Even last week, despite the desire of the chairman of ILEA's education committee, there was another day's strike. The rank and file—or what we call rank and rile in many cases in London—took over the NUT in 1968, to the horror of the rest of the country. Since then we have had continued militancy. I served on two committees of the NUT before that and I resigned from it because we were striking at the drop of a hat. I would not strike, but others were brought out in that way. That did untold harm.
The second reason is that many of the appointments in ILEA were not for good teaching but because people served on committees and were union officers, and so became known at county hall. Teachers were not coming in from outside; there were many incestuous appointments from inside of people who sat on committees dealing with the length of chair-legs and such great educational portents as that. Those who met regularly were appointed, not the teachers working in the schools.
The third reason is the results. Whatever Labour Members say, if they sent their children to schools where the results were 40 per cent. lower than the average in the rest of the country, they would be worried. Parents are worried because the standards of schools depend on the standards of results that can be expected. Without doctoring or massaging the results, we are aware that, in comparison with the average for the country, 40 per cent. fewer pupils in ILEA get five 0-levels or grade 1 CSEs. Such poor results are despite the fact that 40 per cent. more is spent in ILEA as opposed to the rest of the country.
I believe that there are three reasons for such poor results. First, when children are tested at the age of 11, the results are basically average. Therefore, there is a decline in pupils' educational standards in ILEA's secondary schools between the ages of 11 and 16. We should explore that failure. At the age of 11, only 1 per cent. of ILEA's pupils have an education standard lower than the general average. However, by the time those children reach the age of 16, their results are 40 per cent. lower than those for the country as a whole. Secondly, it is clear that only 1 per cent. of girls at school in ILEA are below standard, so it is the boys who do not perform well. That demonstrates that there is a lack of discipline in the schools. Girls are individualists and they work in schools where discipline is poor. However, boys run with the pack and if a school lacks discipline it affects the boys. Undoubtedly there are poor discipline standards within ILEA.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I can see my hon. Friend moving to give me, as always, some of his wisdom and advice. Before I allow him to do so, to the benefit of everyone—including Opposition Members—let us consider the third reason.
The poor results of ILEA cannot be blamed upon immigration. Indeed, I must pay tribute to ILEA for publishing its results and carrying out research on those results. It is clear that the average results of Indian immigrants are twice as high as those of the host community. Second to them come the Pakistanis, and African children are also above average. It is no good saying that the poor results may be blamed, in some way, on immigration. The results in London would be lower but for those immigrant groups. Therefore, there is no means for turning upon that argument.

Mr. Greenway: In common with my right hon. Friend, I was a member of ILEA and the LCC education committee for some 23 years. From his experience and knowledge of London schools, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are schools today, not far from this House, where packs of children trot around completely out of control —[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them".] That is one reason why the examination results are poor and child attainment so low. Opposition Members need to visit those schools to see what is happening. The other reason for low achievement is that little is expected of the children. Since its inception, ILEA has taken the view that children from a poor or disadvantaged background cannot be expected to achieve much. Therefore, children who formerly achieved a great deal no longer do so.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I believe that it is important to return to smaller boroughs. I believe that, the smaller the borough, the more likely we are to achieve community involvement. It is clear from the percentage of votes recorded at elections that the bigger the borough the fewer the votes cast. If ILEA is translated into smaller boroughs, parents can be influential and there is every likelihood of an improvement in education standards. I believe that that would be a good thing.
Some of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), have referred to local government issues. I believe that, the smaller the boroughs, the nearer the people and therefore the better the government. I believe that the 1964 local government reorganisation in London was, in many cases, a disaster, and that the 1972 local government reorganisation—carried out by the Conservative party—in the rest of the country was a similar disaster. The sooner we get back to smaller units the better. We have got rid of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Now let us get rid of ILEA. In that way, we could transform London, including my area of Brent, into smaller areas because the big units do not work.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I sat down too soon. I intended to give way.

Mr. Banks: My feelings for the right hon. Gentleman have increased immeasurably, not merely because he happens to bear a strong resemblance to Wackford Squeers. As the right hon. Gentleman was just about to tell us about how small is beautiful, does he also believe that the shire counties should also be abolished and power given to the district councils?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I sometimes think that some of the London schools would be better if they had some Wackford Squeerses in charge—at least the children would pass some examinations.
I do not share the hon. Gentleman's expertise on the shires. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not regularly read Country Life. I do not ride and I do not know what happens in the country. I am sure that he knows more than I do, and perhaps he could give me a private lesson about what to do with the shires so that they, in common with inner London, could be improved.

Mr. Tom Cox: The Secretary of State has told us that it is the Government's desire to give more freedom of choice to parents, but, as a result of the decision that he is now forcing upon parents in inner London, they are to be denied the right to make such a decision on the future of education in inner London.
Not one school in my constituency—the Tooting area of the London borough of Wandsworth—supports the Government's proposals. I believe that the same could equally apply to schools in Battersea and Putney. I could name all the schools in my constituency that are totally opposed to the break-up of ILEA, but I will give just one example of a meeting that took place at Allfarthing school in the borough of Wandsworth. On 28 January a motion was put before a meeting of that school. That meeting was prior to the announcement by the Secretary of State regarding abolition, and we were then talking about opting out. The motion before the meeting read:
That this meeting approves in principle of Wandsworth opting out of the Inner London Education Authority".
The result of the parents' vote on that motion was six in favour, 94 against and 16 abstentions. Such an example could be quoted not only elsewhere in the London borough of Wandsworth, but in any division of ILEA where meetings have taken place with the people who matter—the parents of the youngsters.

Mr. John Marshall: rose—

Mr. Cox: No, I do not intend to give way.
One of the revealing disgraces of this debate is that we now know that the Secretary of State has visited just one school in inner London during his period of office. Yet he can tell us what is wrong with London's provision of education. Where are all the letters of complaint? Where are all the letters that the Secretary of State and his Department have received from dissatisfied parents? If parents are so dissatisfied, why are they opting, in such numbers, to seek to defend the retention of ILEA? Those parents know whether or not their children are doing well at school—they see the evidence—and they want ILEA to remain.
If there is any honesty and any true democracy left, it is about time that the Secretary of State sought to get the views of London parents as to his proposals. He most certainly does not know their views at the present time.
Many of us who represent inner-London constituencies live in our constituencies. We know the schools. We know many of the parents whose children go to schools in our constituencies. We also know about the problems.
Let me quote a report about the London borough of Wandsworth, which goes back to October 1987, four months ago. It states that more than 40 per cent. of the children who go to school in Wandsworth come from families


who have incomes so low that they are able to claim free school meals;
—about one in five have unemployed parents;
—27 per cent. come from one-parent families;
—one in five speaks a language other than English at home".
The Minister of State represents a constituency that borders mine, so she cannot claim that she is unaware of what happens in inner London. She must also have some of the problems that we have in the borough where her constituency is. When we are told about how ILEA spends its money, many of us in the Opposition applaud it. We say that at least ILEA's policies bring some hope into the lives of many of the youngsters who go to schools within ILEA.
There is now a great fear that we shall see a division between schools where there are facilities and schools where there are not. Some parents who are in employment and earning a reasonable salary will have the opportunity to contribute towards the facilities that schools need; but in other schools parents will not be in that position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to equalisation. We did not fully understand what the Secretary of State was saying because he never fully spelt out what he meant. However, other hon. Members have commented. In the London borough of Wandsworth, there will be a difference of £60 million. Few people in Wandsworth believe that, under the present administration, there would be any attempt to insist that present standards were maintained or, indeed, improved.
In Wandsworth we have already been told that if the borough can take over the running of education, one of the priorities will be to put education in the market place. That is the terminology that is used, and we in Wandsworth know what it means. The borough will privatise as quickly as possible as many of the present services in our schools as it can. If any hon. Member believes that that will meet with the approval of parents and that it will help to improve the morale of teaching staff, he lives in a dream world.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cox: I do not intend to give way.
We have fears, and we have ample reason to fear. The leader of Wandsworth council goes around speaking at meetings. When he is challenged about what he will do about the opposition at those meetings, he dismisses it and says, "They're a bunch of troublemakers. They are not parents." That is how much notice he takes of parents who go to those meetings out of interest to hear what the council is seeking to do.
There should be proper consultation by referendum, organised by a body such as the Electoral Reform Society. Such a referendum is not impossible because we know that the names and addresses of the parents of all the youngsters who go to our schools are available. Until there is a referendum, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State will be fooling themselves if they think that they are acting with the authority of the people of London, because they certainly do not speak for the people of London on this vital issue.
Under the leadership of London county council and then of ILEA there have been improvements. Not one of us has said that ILEA could not be improved. The tragedy

is, as with the rates debates, that when the elected members of ILEA at county hall sought discussions with Ministers, they were always turned down or they were available only on Ministers' terms. There was never free discussion or the willingness to listen to some of the problems suffered in inner London education.
Neither the Minister of State, the Secretary of State nor this Tory Government speak for the people of London on this issue. If they do not listen to what people are saying, there will be utter turmoil in our education sytem. If that is what they want, heaven help London and the children of London.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) has given us an excellent rendition of the emotional case against the abolition of ILEA. However, I am afraid that he forgets that there was a recent by-election in Southfields, in Wandsworth. He may have forgotten—he certainly did not tell the House—that the by-election was fought largely upon the opting-out of Wandsworth council, which is similar to the provisions introduced by the Secretary of State. I do not need to remind the House that the Conservatives in Wandsworth council retained the seat handsomely.

Mr. Tracey: And with an increased majority.

Mr. Carrington: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me. That gives the lie to what the hon. Member for Tooting was saying about the attitude of those in the borough.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend has missed one other critical factor about that by-election. It was fought by the Labour party on the specific slogan, "Keep Wandsworth in ILEA by voting Labour."

Mr. Carrington: Indeed.
I think that it is fair to say that few tears are shed by anybody in London about the demise of ILEA. However, there are many fears about its demise, which I know many of my hon. Friends will share. They come largely from parents who have children in schools in boroughs that are run by somewhat Left-wing authorities, which, for deliberate political purposes, may go out of their way to disrupt this major change in education and try to make it not work in the efficient way in which it could work.
I believe that we shall see a campaign by certain councils. I trust that Hammersmith and Fulham council, which, unfortunately, and however temporarily, has control of my constituency, will not put the block in the way of the administrative reforms that will have to be introduced. But I am afraid that my optimism may be misplaced. My fears are shared not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) but by certain other hon. Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear that in mind when he draws up the necessary proposals.
The reforms that are contained in the Education Reform Bill, combined with the reforms in local authority finance, in the form of the community charge and the uniform business rate, will make the danger of that disruption and that political control of schools by somewhat extreme Left-wing boroughs much less. Nevertheless, it is a danger that we must watch out for.

Mr. Holland: When the hon. Gentleman first raised that point, I thought that I would let it pass, but as he has


come back to it, I draw it to his attention. I do not know whether he will consider the London borough of Lambeth being excluded from that category that he has suggested. I put it to him, as an hon. Member in such a borough, that I have received no such letter from any such constituent—no such representation from any such constituent.

Mr. Carrington: I cannot answer for the hon. Gentleman's postbag. The London borough of Lambeth has a reputation along the lines that I have described. I am talking specifically about my own council's attitudes and expected reactions. I suspect that the cap will fit in certain other parts of London.
It has been made clear that ILEA's problem relates to secondary education. The low standard of ILEA secondary schools is criticised by parents, teachers, head teachers, and people who pay for education in London. However we measure it, the standard is mediocre to bad. The Sheffield university report, which has frequently been quoted, made the point that if one wants high standards from secondary schools, one does not go to ILEA schools. Their performance is based on the low standard measurements in the report.
According to statistics, secondary schools are bad. Some secondary headmasters will blame poor performance at primary schools, the standards at which children are sent to secondary schools, and their inability to be able to cope. But we are not talking about statistics. Education is not about statistics. We are talking about the standard of teaching and the qualifications that pupils—boys and girls—get from schools.
Some ILEA schools are excellent. Some schools in my constituency are excellent. The tragedy is that if one takes out the excellent schools, those that are left are even worse than those that are shown in the statistics. The interesting thing about division 1 schools—that is, Kensington, Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham —is that the ones that perform well are almost exclusively voluntary aided schools. I have talked to the head teachers and teachers of voluntary aided schools that are doing well. They attribute their good results to the fact that they fight ILEA. They do not do what ILEA tells them to do. Indeed, they are extensively criticised by ILEA for their teaching methods and for the standards that they insist that their pupils achieve.
If hon. Members want more than statistics for a condemnation of ILEA secondary schools, it is apparent that all over central London—it is particularly true in Fulham and generally where people have a choice in education—if people can possibly afford to send their children to schools other than ILEA schools, they choose to do so. They have been choosing to do so in increasing numbers. It is not a matter of class or socio-economic divisions. It is a matter of scrimping, saving and struggling to get a standard of education that they know they cannot achieve by sending their children to ILEA schools. Indeed, they would rather pay twice as much and get the type of education that they think will equip their children to be able to face the world after leaving school.
The solution is obvious. It must be the abolition of ILEA. It must be the removal of all the wrongs that go with ILEA. We have heard of many tonight, and I shall add one more.
For many years, I have been a governor of the polytechnic of central London. Until the passing of the Education Reform Bill, ILEA controls the polytechnic of

central London. About two or three years ago, a senior ILEA education officer was present at a court of governors meeting. I shall not name him. He has gone on to bigger and better things. I am sure that he does not wish to be reminded of the pressures that he was under when he worked out of county hall. We were being pressured by the Labour group in control of ILEA to pass a political motion about a certain aspect of Government legislation, which was only tangentially related to education. [Interruption.] It was to do with overseas students and funding. It was tangential to the control that was exercised by the governors of the polytechnic of central London. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are making remarks from a sedentary position. I shall answer them. The reason I said that was that, as a court of governors of a polytechnic, we were forced to make political resolutions about something relating to Government policy and which only slightly affected the polytechnic, in the sense that it affected only a small proportion of students.
The court was not minded to pass the resolution. The senior officer said, "Unless you pass the resolution, it will have a bad effect on the block grant settlement that you will get from ILEA." He confirmed it when I challenged him. Needless to say, the court took the coward's way out and decided to pass the resolution. That shows the degree of politicisation that was forced upon ILEA officers even three or four years ago. That situation is considerably worse now, and it justifies a major shake-up of ILEA.

Mr. Spearing: Without going into the rights or wrongs of what he said, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a risk of what he calls politicisation in any authority, and from the Right or the Left? As he is a business man and a representative of business, will he assure the House that the general level of support for education will not be reduced if the Bill is passed, as was stated by himself and his hon. Friends?

Mr. Carrington: I have not mentioned the financing of education in London.
Politicians on the court of governors of schools or polytechnic have a perfect right to try to get any political resolution passed. It is wrong for an officer who is there to advise and to be politically impartial to threaten the court of governors.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned financing. I was fascinated to hear some statements about the financing of education after the change to the uniform business rate and the community charge, which will coincide with the introduction of the Education Reform Bill and, therefore, the abolition of ILEA. Of course, the uniform business rate will completely change all the numbers that the hon. Gentleman talked about.

Mr. Spearing: Not the needs.

Mr. Carrington: The need-related element that will go into the financing of local education authorities will be covered by the central Government grant element, not the business rate. That is much better. High business rates destroy jobs. The hon. Gentleman would know that, as he lives in a high-rated area.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carrington: No, I shall not give way. I must go on.

Mr. Corbyn: On the point about funding?

Mr. Carrington: No. The point about funding is secondary to my argument. I must get on. The hon. Gentleman may refer to that matter later. The sooner I conclude my remarks, the more rapidly the hon. Gentleman will be called.
The abolition of ILEA is essential. The imposition of the correct controls, which will come about through the Education Reform Bill, is the right solution. It will mean that our schools will be controlled by parents and teachers for the benefit of the local community, with a local education authority in the borough that will be much more attuned to the particular needs of that borough and able, therefore, to give to its schools the assistance, resources and support which at the moment they often lack.
I have given examples of voluntary schools and, indeed, the competition between the good schools and ILEA will no longer exist once we have local education authorities within our boroughs.
I should like to echo some of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends about those services that ILEA provides well. Although its secondary schools are a disaster, ILEA runs certain areas well. My hon. Friends have mentioned special schools and adult education and I echo their comments. There are special schools and a special hearing unit in Fulham and I echo the view that they need to be protected and supported.
I should like to mention another type of provision, which has not been mentioned so often—nursery provision. I am a great supporter of nursery schools because I think that they lay the foundations that enable a child to develop much more rapidly. ILEA has a good provision of nursery schools which must be protected in the transition to boroughs. The boroughs should be encouraged to develop that nursery provision and to build upon what ILEA leaves behind.
ILEA will not be mourned. It has failed the children of London and it must go. Indeed, the sooner that it goes the better. My only regret about this reform is that it will take two years, not one year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's plea for brief speeches.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The abolition of the Inner London education authority means the abolition of the promise of equal opportunities for inner-London's children. It means the abolition of the hopes of every parent in my constituency who wants his or her child to get a fair share of the capital's education resources. It means the abolition of the rights of the overwhelming majority of parents—simply to satisfy Tory spite. Nothing can justify robbing a generation of children of educational opportunity in this way. I speak not from a basis of prejudice or partisanship, as do many Conservative Members, but from my own observations and experiences, both previously as a governor of a school in a shire county and now as a Member of Parliament for an inner-London constituency.
For historical reasons, the constituency of Lewisham, Deptford is faced with some of the worst problems of urban decay. We all live, travel, work and try to find some leisure in a small area of land which consequently looks, and is, over-exploited and polluted. Almost one in five of my constituents is unable to find work. Within the borough of Lewisham, 25,000 people are on a housing list

for a decreasing chance of better housing. A disproportionate number of people fall sick under the mental and physical strain of living in the inner city. Therefore, it is not surprising that my mailbag and my advice surgeries are filled to overflowing with people's individual problems, and that all too many of them are tragically similar.
However, hon. Members may be surprised to know that, when it comes to education, I can remember every single case that has come to me, and the reason that I can do so is that there have been so few. There have been three out of 1,000 constituency cases and not even those parents wanted ILEA to be abolished.
The schools in my constituency are proof of the value of a unitary authority and are a vindication of ILEA's overall philosophy and performance. Through its priority area assessment, ILEA has been able to provide between one and three extra members of staff to each Deptford primary school, giving us a teacher-pupil ratio greater than 1:20. That is of benefit, judged not in monetary terms, but proportional to the needs of the area. It is a shifting of resources from the richest to the poorest. Obviously, that is a Socialist philosophy, but it is one which is approved by Londoners in general and especially by employers, who know that London is a single job market, which needs common education standards.
ILEA policy recognises that children do not all enter schools with the same potential. That is not just a matter of innate intelligence, but a function of the home, the wider environment, health, culture and language. Only a London-wide authority can possibly provide the resourcing and the development of teaching skills to deal with that diversity.
ILEA has provided Lewisham with a multi-purpose teacher centre and a maths centre, both of which have contributed enormously to improving teaching standards, pupil development and pupil performance. No one involved—teacher, parent or governor—doubts that those facilities are of great value. But equally no one expects that such resources could be provided by a single inner-city borough such as Lewisham.
As the most prestigious public schools have always claimed, education is about developing the whole person. Once again, it is ILEA that has made such a philosophy possible for the inner-city schools and that has provided the resources to ensure that every child's imagination is extended in the pursuit of art, drama and music.
Under pressure today, the Secretary of State has flatly refused to make any promises that the present levels of resourcing will be maintained. Indeed, as we know, he has already decided to cut further the funding to ILEA at the same time as his colleagues are crushing still further the rate-capped authorities such as my own. We can but assume that he intends to remove every extra resource that is aimed at greater equalisation in London's education.
That will threaten two further facilities that are available to my constituents, but that are not located in my constituency. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has already mentioned the Horniman museum. Three ILEA teachers are employed there, enabling schools in Deptford to send parties of children, from nursery to sixth form level, to a place of excellence for the study of history. Even more remarkable is the rural centre at Horton Kirby, where again the employment of ILEA staff allows my inner-city schools to make up to eight study visits per year to the Kent countryside.
The value of such facilities in extending children's experience would be taken for granted in any fee-paying school by Conservative Members, but those facilities are bitterly resented when made available to all through the ratepayers' purse.
Earlier this week, I visited an inner-city school in my constituency, as I frequently do. It is one of the less popular secondary schools, named Hatcham Wood, and is much maligned by Conservative Members. I met there, as in so many schools in Deptford, an enthusiastic and committed staff with high expectations of their pupils. I saw diligent pupils hard at work in small classes. The corridors were lined with pupils' work, as were the teachers' room and the parents' room. The school heavily involves parents, as do most ILEA schools. I also saw the school's bookshop, which sell books, to both parents and children, in 10 languages. This school takes mainly band 2 and 3 ability children, but its English results, despite the 10 languages of its children, had exceeded those of a neighbouring voluntary school with a mainly band 1 intake.
Many of the children in my constituency enter school disadvantaged. Many come from families struggling against the burdens of poverty. Many live in overcrowded conditions and one third face society's discrimination because they are black. Yet when they enter our ILEA schools, they enter an environment which does not have those disadvantages. When they enter ILEA schools, they have every expectation of access to the resources that they need for their education. When they enter ILEA schools, they are treated as equals.
No one denies that improvements could and should be made. However, no one has shown—least of all the Secretary of State—that the abolition of ILEA offers any benefits to the majority of ILEA users or its employees. I want to quote from the governors of a school in my constituency, Deptford Park primary:
No case is made that a more efficient education system will result. 'Efficient' seems to mean cheap.
Special Needs provision will deteriorate.
Music, science and history centres will be unable to survive. The inspectorate and other Londonwide support services will he split.
We care about the future of our children in Deptford. We do not feel that these proposals will work for our children now or in the future.
I am confident that, in speaking in this way and opposing the motion, my colleagues and I know that we speak for the vast majority of London's parents.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) made an attractive speech. Obviously she has got to know her constituency very well in the time that she has represented it, but I cannot help thinking that she has glossed over the extent of some of the problems that exist within ILEA today. However, I agree with her on one point about her part of London. I have been asked by a member of the Horniman family to stress that the Horniman museum was provided for the children and people of London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the outcome of reorganisation will ensure that the admirable facilities of the museum will be available to the children of London, as they always have been. I will not tell my hon. Friend the Minister how to achieve that, but it is important that that objective is achieved.
My links with ILEA date back to the time when I was a co-opted member of the education committee of the Inner London education authority. I believe that I was a member at the only time that ILEA was controlled by the Tory party. We were led by Christopher Chataway. I thought that we were rather good, and we had quite a good opposition as well. Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have developed an affection and concern for ILEA that has stayed with me, although it has nothing to do with my constituency.
At the time to which I am referring a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends served on ILEA. They included my right hon. Friends the Members for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Streatham (Mr. Shelton). Over the years we have all watched anxiously what has happened to ILEA.
In those days ILEA was quite a new authority. It had not long changed from being the London county council. It had inherited some of the very distinguished traditions of the London county council. There was a real dedication among those who worked for ILEA towards the children and students of London. There was also a width of resources that gave ILEA certain advantages.
On the other hand, I am bound to say that, as I served on ILEA, two things began to worry me. First, I believe that there was an over-confidence that ILEA was the greatest. It was not very good at asking searching questions of itself. In a sense, parents were always a little down-graded. There was something a little too paternalistic about ILEA's ethos, admirable though it was in some respects. Secondly, there was an over-commitment on the part of the Labour party and the officers to the very big, all-through comprehensive. We began to question and rethink that while we were in office, although we did not get very far. History will clearly show that the notion of the very big comprehensive was flawed. When we talk about what is recognised as being the main weakness in London's schools today—namely, the secondary stage—to some extent the origins of that problem lie in the time to which I am referring. Since then I have not had any direct concern in ILEA, but two of my children have attended ILEA schools and I have close family connections with ILEA teachers.
I believe that over the years a decline has taken place, and that is sad. I believe that the reputation and morale of ILEA have fallen. I do not want to paint a completely black picture today. There are still many people in ILEA who are totally dedicated to the task of teaching. Much good work is being done. Hon. Members have said that adult education is exceptionally good. Special education has always had a high reputation. Good work is being done in higher and further education and good work is being carried out in the schools. Indeed, good work is being carried out in difficult circumstances, which have been described by many hon. Members during the debate.
It would be unfair to give the impression that London education is a shambles. However, I think that things have gone wrong. I do not believe that ILEA has been able to cope, as it should, with the admittedly very difficult pressures and circumstances under which it has operated. We must state that ILEA's record on secondary education, on the basis of the leaked HMI reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as well as other evidence, is unsatisfactory. To have 40 per cent. of secondary schools


classed as unsatisfactory or poor is something that we cannot simply shrug off. Something must be done about it.
We understand the problems. Bigness is a problem. When I was a member of ILEA there was a feeling that big was the right thing to be and that we could do big things. At the same time, I was, rather unusually, a member of the education authority of a small outer-London borough. Therefore, I had the chance to compare big and small directly. Over the years, the attractions of smallness have loomed larger. Of course, smallness involves a more intimate way of running an education system.
The task of assimilating children from an enormous variety of cultures has proved to be enormously difficult. I am not sure that ILEA has handled that as well as it should have. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was right to state that the record shows that often children from ethnic minorities do very well judged by formal results. I am delighted at that. However, it is not simply a question of classroom results. There have been great difficulties assimilating the large number of people who come to London with different languages. Because ILEA has pursued too many red herrings and has not concentrated enough on the basic, simple task of teaching all children the three R's, and so providing the basic education which the national curriculum is designed to restore, to some extent it has failed to deal with the problem.
ILEA has played its part in what we can only regard overall as a deterioration in attitudes towards standards and discipline. Of course, the background includes a great deal of family breakdown. We cannot blame the education authority for that. However, I believe that at the heart of ILEA's philosophy—if I can generalise in these terms—there has been a failure to get to grips with what I would call the moral imperatives which must accompany education if it is to be successful.
I also believe that ILEA has not, by and large, been well served by the Inner London Teachers Association or by many of the younger and more militant teachers who have had far too much influence in inner London education. They have been egged on and backed by the other great weakness in ILEA—the excessive or irresponsible politicisation that has been shown—

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raison: I will not give way, as I want to be brief.
In London and elsewhere there has been excessive meddling by elected representatives in what I regard to be the true domain of the professional in running education. I know that that is an unpopular thing to say in a House of elected representatives. However, that has been a serious problem to which ILEA has succumbed. All those factors have led to a loss in the intrinsic authority of the Inner London education authority. What should we do about that?
I have to confess, as does every hon. Member who describes his own part in government—if he has been in government—that in the period around 1980 I was one of those who at that time fought successfully to maintain ILEA. I thought at the time that it was the right answer, but I find it much harder to summon up enthusiasm for keeping it today. There is, in any event, a stronger case for change in certain regards. In particular, the removal of the

polytechnics of higher education, as laid down in the Bill, will certainly make it easier to hand over the powers to the boroughs, because they are a major part of what might be called all-London provision.
Another point concerns our experience of the dismantling of the GLC. The enormous forebodings expressed about the impact of that abolition have not been borne out. For example, I well remember how the arts lobby, in its usual splendid, stirring, theatrical terms, said that the arts in London would be clobbered by the demise of the GLC. Nevertheless, spending on the arts in London has risen by 40 per cent. People are creating alarmist stories which are not justified by the facts.

Mr. Corbyn: Where is the evidence for that?

Mr. Raison: Of course, I acknowledge that there is bound to be a period of uncertainty. The one fact of which I am certain is that it is right to make a clean break, as these new amendments propose, rather than the slow demise that was implicit in the Education Reform Bill mark 1. That would have been the worst of all worlds, and I think that the Government have taken the right step in providing for a complete end to ILEA.
Let me say a word about the whole business of the transfer. It is, of course, essential that the good aspects of London education, which have been referred to, should not be vitiated during the transfer process. That is the particular responsibility of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister.
As for the mechanisms, I am sure that the residuary body will do a good job with the nuts and bolts. It has shown its capabilities already, and no doubt it will continue to do so. But the crucial decisions will be about the allocation of the major educational systems and institutions. As I understand it, the Government have decided to operate the arrangements—or, it could be said, co-ordinate them—through a unit in the Department of Education and Science. The alternative suggestion is that the task should be performed by an extension of the residuary body, led by a leading educationist. That argument proposes that the power should remain with the residuary body until it is satisfied that the different boroughs are capable of taking over or are in a position to do so.
It is possible to argue about which is the better way of doing that, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that aspect when she winds-up the debate. It is, however, crucial that the operation is carried out with tremendous sensitivity. I hope that my right hon. Friend—who is, after all, generous-spirited—will see the need, during a period in which there are bound to be all sorts of anxieties, to acknowledge the good being done by so many people. I hope that he will do so by telling London teachers—who are teaching in incredibly difficult circumstances—that he understands how difficult it is.
I know of classes in London where it is the exception for children to come from stable homes, and very unusual for a child to have two parents—certainly, two married parents. I know of classes where virtually every child—perhaps every child—receives free meals; where there are cases of incest and, occasionally, murder in the children's family background.
I hope that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister will show that they understand the enormous burdens carried by the teachers who must deal with such


problems, and will therefore do all that they can to deal with the difficulties of transition in as sympathetic and constructive a way as possible. I am sure that they will do so, because they are generous people. Moreover, I feel that they can turn this into the chance of achieving something better, by stressing over and over again that the merit of the borough approach is that is brings decision-making closer to the people.
It will sometimes be dotty decision-making, just as it has been in the past. We must recognise that. It is the risk that we run. However, the aim to bring education closer to the people should remedy to some extent what I feel has been one of the weaknesses of the ILEA regime: the failure to involve parents as they should be involved. I believe that the borough pattern offers some chance of that, and I hope that, provided that that kind of sensitivity is shown by my right hon. Friend, we can look forward to the day when London education ends its long decline and begins an upturn.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am not a London Member, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am therefore grateful to have caught your eye. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may well find that I can make a shorter speech without their interventions. I was about to say that, in deference to them and to hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall attempt to make my speech fairly short, but if they persist in interrupting me they will find that I can speak for far longer.
I have a few comments to make on behalf of my party, and, in particular, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman insists.

Mr. Corbyn: I do insist. I find it very strange that, having heard a lengthy speech earlier from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who purported to represent the views of the alliance on education matters, we now have a speech from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), a constituency which, as far as I am aware, is not part of ILEA. There are not even any ILEA establishments in Yeovil. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman represents some other part of the alliance. Will he tell us what is going on, and how long he will take to tell us about it?

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman will discover that it will take considerably less time for me to say what I have to say if I am not burdened by such ludicrous and ridiculous interventions. I am representing not only my own constituents, but my own view, and, moreover, I am the spokesman for a party with 17 Members of Parliament. I do not think that inconsiderable. I shall confine myself to a relatively short speech, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
We have heard some interesting speeches from Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) mentioned the size of ILEA; indeed, one of the arguments frequently put forward by the Government is that ILEA is one of the largest education authorities in Europe, if not the largest. For the record, that is not the case: Strathclyde has 135 more schools, and many more pupils.
However, the most remarkable speech that we have heard came from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I suppose that the only explanation for that rather extraordinary speech was that it was intended to contribute not to this debate, but rather to a debate with a somewhat wider circle. His most remarkable comment, after a long disquisition about how ILEA had suffered from a lack of teachers, was the presumption that handing it over to such boroughs as Southwark and Camden would cause a flood of teachers to come in.
There is no doubt that I LEA needs reform; I suspect that Opposition Members would agree with that. In some areas, there has been inefficiency and political interference. I am told that not a single ILEA building has been sold for at least 10 years, despite depopulation. However, what strikes me as extraordinary is that, if in isolated instances ILEA is as bad as the Government claim, a Government who have had the power under the Local Government Act 1985 to intervene and to make amendments have never used those powers that they now use as a political pretext to bring about the abolition of ILEA.
Although the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) put the case extremely well, I do not take his view that there has been a substantial U-turn. I do not think that the long-term conclusion of the Government's original proposals—killing off ILEA by stealth—and what they are now doing in a single brutal act of dismemberment are significantly different in outcome, although I recognise that they were not broadcast, as the Secretary of State would suggest, in the manifesto. I suggest that the reasons have nothing to do with the future of 250,000 schoolchildren in London. They have everything to do with the internal squabbles and the personal ambitions in the Conservative party. That seems to have been proved beyond contradiction.
If we need changes in ILEA—and I think that we do—we should have a long-term in-depth review. The recommendations from that could deal with the question whether ILEA should be abolished. That is the way to go about these matters. Instead of a decent, measured, in-depth review we are to get a brutal hastily conducted, politically motivated and inevitably bloody and disruptive dismemberment of London's strategic body.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way. I wish to keep my speech brief because other hon. Members would like to speak.
The reasons for abolishing ILEA feature prominently in the motion which talks about
profligate overspending with a persistent failure to raise standards".
The matter of overspending seems to have been coped with adequately. The reality is that, whereas ILEA spends about 1.5 times the national average, the Health Service—which is controlled not by elected representatives but by politically appointed representatives of the Government—spends about twice the national average. The police, again under Government control, spends about 3.5 times the national average.
The hon. Member for Blackburn spoke about standards. Persistently, reports from Her Majesty's inspectorate say that if we take into account the social and economic factors, ILEA comes out at about the national average in most cases. That is perfectly clearly said. 1f we


look at the undoctored figures, which I looked at today, the Department of Education and Science figures for the increase in the number of pupils who gained five or more 0-levels or the equivalent between 1978 and 1985—quite an important category—we find that in that period ILEA's improvement was 15 per cent. whereas, the national average was 13 per cent. That area touches precisely ILEA's greatest weakness—the secondary sector.
If the problem is standards, how will the Government's suggestions and proposals improve them? As we have had clearly demonstrated, if anything, the poorer boroughs, where one would expect standards to be lower, where the areas of deprivation are highest and the problems greatest, will get not more resources, but massively fewer. Although the Government say that they will compensate for that, the level of compensation required will be massive. I have heard the figure of £10 million quoted by an Opposition Member. Greenwich contributes 2–68 per cent. to the ILEA budget and takes out of it 10.3 per cent. The Minister of State is to reply to this debate. If she tells the House that the Government will make good that shortfall, perhaps she has an argument. I am willing to bet anything that the hon. Lady will make no such commitment and I would bet even more that the Government will carry out no such action. Of course, the consequence of that is that the poorer, more deprived boroughs will have less money and standards will not go up; they will drop.
Evidence from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy published by Mrs. Rita Hale shows that not only will that be the case, but that the higher incidence of families with more children and fewer adults—single parents and so on—may well mean that `poorer boroughs will have to pay a significantly higher poll tax than the richer boroughs because of the costs involved. CIPFA calculates that in a borough such as Hackney that could be £50 more per annum in poll tax. Not only will the poorer boroughs suffer from having fewer education resources, but the poor people living in them will have to pay a higher poll tax.
I shall finish with the most telling point of all. The Government complain that they are doing this because of Left-wing profligacy and extremism. What do the Government do? They take the children in these boroughs, lock, stock and barrel, and commit them to the tender mercies of councils such as Southwark, Camden and Lambeth.

Ms. Harman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the future education of children in boroughs such as Southwark cannot be safeguarded when such boroughs are already struggling with growing demands for housing and social services, at a time when the resources for those services are limited? Does he not think that it is quite impossible for those boroughs to take on the task of improving education in London, which is what we want to see?

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Her point is powerfully made in the Audit Commission's report which says precisely that Conservatives should realise that the Audit Commission predicts that if this should happen the burden on the already inadequate administration in many London boroughs could lead to a situation where some areas in London will become like the Bronx or the

east of Chicago. Those are not the precise words, but that is what the Audit Commission said. That is the consequence that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) is talking about. I shall give a quotation for the House to think about:
Money spent in many areas is wasted. The services are demonstrably poor … it is far from being a well-run organisation. In many respects, it is on the verge of collapse".
Is that a comment on ILEA? It is not. It is a comment on Southwark borough council by its leader, Mrs. Anne Matthews. The Government want to give to that borough, not only the capacity to make a mess of the other things that it now organises, but to make a mess of education as well.
When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill, he said that the Government want to improve standards and to bring costs under control. What will they do? They will hand over education lock, stock and barrel to a council such as Southwark which in October had a deficit of £45 million. The Secretary of State has said what the Government want to achieve. That is the way they will set about achieving it.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) said that Camden borough was not fit to take over Hampstead Heath. How can he now be in favour of handing over to that borough the management of its entire education system? It does not make sense. This legislation is not only dangerous but politically motivated. It will make 250,000 children the subject of the ambitions and clashes in the Conservative party. This may well have a cynical outcome. What the Government may well wish to seek by the Bill is not only the handing over of education to Conservative boroughs, but the creation of a situation in the poorer boroughs where many schools will have no alternative but to opt out and come under the direct control of the Secretary of State. So it will be that the Conservatives will take over much of London's education, whether or not they were elected to do that job. A more cynical or corrupt act cannot have been in prospect since the days of the rotten boroughs.
To take a decision to disband ILEA without any sort of review is the height of irresponsibility. To do it hard on the heels of a wholly different commitment in the Government's manifesto is unconstitutional. To do that without setting out clearly what alternative arrangements are to be made is a betrayal of the Secretary of State's office and of the future of this city's children.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: At the time of my birth, my mother was a teacher in the London county council education service and in one way or another I have been involved in education in inner London ever since. During that time I have been conscious of a decline in almost every aspect of the provision in our secondary schools. There has been a fall in academic standards, examination results and standards of discipline. We have seen an increasing lack of motivation among teachers. A lack of dedication has crept in because of politicisation and political interference. The saddest scandal of all is that after 10 or 11 years many children who leave school in London are unemployable. They do not have the skills to take up the jobs that are waiting to be done in inner London.
ILEA is over-ripe for reform. It would be the duty of any Government to carry out that reformation. It is right that the Government should regard it as one of their greatest priorities in trying to regenerate the inner city.
I fear that I must tell my right hon. Friend that the solution that he is proposing is not the right one. While it may improve matters for children in some boroughs, it will worsen them for children in boroughs such as Southwark. I look with horror at some of the things that I see going on in secondary schools, but that pales into insignificance when I consider the horrors that will arise from a Southwark education authority.
The borough of Southwark has many problems. It is a poor borough and there is much deprivation. Its history of tackling those problems has been one of abject failure. It has done nothing to improve housing, although there have been more than adequate resources to solve that problem. Its social service provision has been indifferent at best and at worst scandalous when one remembers incidents such as those at Nye Bevan lodge and the three other local authority homes for the elderly that are at present under investigation. I feel nothing but trepidation about the future of children of Southwark, who will have no choice other than to go to a Southwark education authority school. On that basis, I cannot give support to this proposition.
I was happy to support my right hon. Friend's first suggestion. It was, no doubt, to the advantage—and good luck to them—of boroughs such as Wandsworth, Westminster or Kensington and Chelsea, who are capable of providing a better education service than that being provided by ILEA. It was right that they should be able to back their judgment, attract children and give parents a choice of school. In so doing provision should have been made for boroughs which remained but which did not have the will or competence and which deliberately avoided providing educational necessities. By allowing those in competent boroughs to opt out, there would have been an opportunity to restructure the provision for the boroughs that were left. It would have made good sense for boroughs such as Lambeth, Southwark or Greenwich and Lewisham to have formed a small unitary authority. On their own they might not have been sufficiently competent or had the expertise and professionalism necessary to run an education service, but as a small unitary authority in south-east London it could have provided a service better than that provided at present by ILEA. That possibility is not now open to the parents of Southwark. Their only choice will be to look outside the borough for a school for their children if they wish to avoid the horrors of a Southwark education service.
I fear that that is a negative reason for giving my support to this proposal. There is, however, a positive reason for my wanting a unitary authority for London to deal with certain aspects of education. I, like many Conservative Members, have focused on the defects of ILEA, but it has many good points. Those good points were not created by ILEA; they have grown up over the years. The adult education service is such an example. It was not created by ILEA; it was in place many years before that. If anything, it has been the one service that ILEA has undervalued. If ever there has been an immediate need to make a cut, ILEA has made a cut in the adult education service as the first and easiest way out.
The adult education service has been one of those interesting strategic services. It has delivered education at

the point of greatest necessity and it has been adaptable in moving from building to building when required. It has adapted to social and changing needs. During the war it provided comfort and support to those who felt that there was something productive to be done together.
We have watched the adult education service develop over the years until we see it as it is today where it provides skill, occupation and hope for many who are unemployed. It offers them a second chance. For the elderly it provides social contact, productive activity and a feeling that there is still something to be learnt even though one may have retired and be over 70 or 80 years of age. I was talking to the principal of an adult education institute the other day and I asked, "What is the age range of your students?" I was told that the average age was about 46. The youngest was two months—brought by her mother to the creche—and the oldest was over 90.
The adult education provision is special and unique to London. It cannot be recreated or transplanted. My right hon. Friend has recognised the importance of AEIs and their London-wide provision. Sometimes people go not to the places which are nearest their homes but to those nearest their work. My right hon. Friend has recognised the expertise and specialism of AEIs. He has recognised the importance of such institutes as the "City Lit", the Mary Ward centre, the working men's institute and Morley college. He has recognised that they provide a London-wide service which could never be taken on by an individual borough. He has to carry out the delicate but difficult act of surgery of trying to separate the bad parts of ILEA from the good parts which may wither if they are not sustained. I welcome the fact that a unit is to he set up in the Department to ensure that the AEIs continue.
As to the importance of special education, we all know that many parents of children with learning difficulties find it hard to get assessments from ILEA. The delays are unconscionable but expertise exists to deal with them. I dread to think what would happen if it were left to the bureaucracy of Southwark council to make the necessary reference for assessment.
I am sorry that I cannot give my right hon. Friend my support for his proposals. I hope that he will be able to reassure me that some of my misgivings about the future are understood by him and can be allayed.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I am glad that the Secretary of State has joined us again, especially in view of much of his misrepresentation concerning the leader of the Inner London education authority, Mr. Neil Fletcher. I have a copy of a letter sent to him today by Mr. Fletcher to which I hope he will be able to respond. I hope that he will respond especially on the matter of the quotations, which the Secretary of State has taken out of context. The first concerns a Socialist Education Association fringe meeting on 30 September. The full quotation of what Neil Fletcher said was:
Let me make it absolutely clear that I have always been and remain a fervent believer in comprehensive education. I want to see a service which provides the best quality of education for all the children regardless of their class, their race, or their sex.
In his letter to the Secretary of State Mr. Fletcher has said:
Since I sent a copy of the speech concerned to you, I am surprised that you have allowed your colleague to indulge in such gross misrepresentation. You are perfectly well aware that my speech cannot be construed in any way as supporting any of the proposals in the Education Reform Bill.


There is also the matter of selective quotations from the reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate. On 4 February the Secretary of State referred in the House to Her Majesty's inspectorate reports on ILEA which "express real concern". There are other quotations from the reports which are relevant to the debate regarding ILEA's provision such as:
ILEA's provision for under-fives is among the best in the country";
and
Overall ILEA's adult education provision is a first-rate service in every respect".
On its research and statistics provision Her Majesty's inspectorate's finding is that it
has now, and has always had, a high national and international reputation. Some of its work over the years has been seminal and had an influence and importance far beyond ILEA".
Again,
When (exam) results are adjusted for socio-economic factors the ILEA appears to perform up to expectations.
Several Conservative Members have criticised the London borough of Lambeth. It is the second most deprived borough in London. It has the highest proportion of single-parent families and a very high proportion of children with special needs. It is a multilingual borough. One fifth of all schoolchildren speak a language other than English at home—mainly Bengali, Chinese or Urdu. Thirteen ILEA schools in Lambeth are special schools catering for children with a wide range of disabilities — including visual and hearing impairment and motor disability — as well as emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. Children from all over London attend those schools. In addition, children with special needs are now being supported in mainstream primary and secondary schools.
A further problem facing Lambeth is that, while secondary school rolls are falling, primary school rolls are increasing, with a 12 per cent. rise projected by 1992 demonstrating the need for additional resources to meet the increasing demand for primary places.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is not with us. He said earlier that he could not think of a single way in which the abolition of the GLC had made anything worse. I put it to him that the abolition of the strategic housing role of the GLC has meant that thousands of families and individuals who would have been moved to outer London have not been moved there. As a result, since 1982 the birth rate has risen in inner London, placing increased pressure on the schools. I regret to note that the Secretary of State is involved in conversation and is not paying attention to the argument. No doubt his officials will draw my remarks to his attention when they appear in Hansard.
Inner-London boroughs have a higher proportion of older school buildings than outer-London boroughs. They have not been the beneficiaries of modern building programmes to the same extent as outer London boroughs.
Some 5,000 Lambeth children cross borough boundaries to attend secondary schools elsewhere — for example, in Pimlico. How is that cross-borough transfer to be funded? Perhaps the Minister of State will reply to

that question. Will it stop? Do the Government intend to slam the door on the inner-city in education as they have in housing?
Other centres of excellence, such as Morley college, have been referred to by Conservative Members. Morley college is a centre of excellence for music classes and unique foreign language classes. Lambeth and Southwark together—there are facilities in both boroughs—could not possibly afford such funding.
I come to nursery education and stress once more that the birth rate is now rising in inner London boroughs such as Lambeth. The Lambeth nursery education group advises me that only 23 per cent. of three and four-year-olds enjoy nursery education, as compared with 100 per cent. in France and Belgium. ILEA has the best record in the United Kingdom, with provision for up to 40 per cent. Nursery education is non-statutory. [Interruption.] I have just been made an offer that I shall refuse reluctantly as representations were made to me on a range of issues at a special meeting last Saturday lasting more than four hours. I urge Conservative Members to address those issues. There is a nursery school within walking distance—a few hundred yards—of the House. Ninety-three per cent. of the children who attend that school live in council housing and more than 50 per cent. are from one-parent families. The children in that school alone speak 14 different languages. As the headmaster of that school made plain to me, the house will fall if the foundations are inadequate. It is clear from Scandinavian evidence that primary and infant teaching greatly facilitate the achievement of literacy.
Another point, which has not been raised in the debate, has been put to me by the chair of the governors of Heathbrook primary school. A unanimous resolution was passed by those governers saying that the abolition of ILEA would destroy the balance between the boroughs and their facilities and learning resources. More than that, the governors want to be concerned with education. School governors do not wish to have to take over ILEA's administrative functions. They do not want the responsibility of hiring and firing ancillary staff. They do not want to be concerned with executive management. Heads of schools do not want to become executive managers. They want to be able to teach.
On adult education, it was reported directly to me that, of the 30,000 students in the London borough of Wandsworth attending three institutes, 12,700 filled in answers to a referendum within a week, and 92 per cent. said, "Leave us alone."
I submit that on a range of grounds the Education Reform Bill is an abomination. It should not have been introduced. It will not only decimate resources and demoralise staff but do damage to the education of our children.

Mr. David Evennett: I have been amazed at the Opposition's speeches during the four hours for which I have sat here and listened with great interest. The rosy pictures which they painted bore no relation to the position in inner-London schools. One would never believe from listening to them that good schools have been destroyed over the past 20 years, that subjects have been removed from the curriculum in many schools, that lack


of discipline and truancy are problems and that examination results, especially in secondary schools, are so poor.
Of course ILEA has some good points. It has been innovative in many ways and especially good in nursery provision and further education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) told us. It will not do to hear half-truths and half the story. All of us who have been involved in education in London over many years know the true position — the deterioration in schools and standards in inner London. ILEA should have been abolished when the late and unlamented Greater London council was finally laid to rest. Just like the GLC in its day, ILEA is remote and bureaucratic. It performs functions that could he dealt with by boroughs, just as many other functions are.
I have a twofold involvement in ILEA. First, I was a governor and manager in Hackney schools in the late 1970s. I was appalled by what I found in my many visits to schools there. I have continued to keep in contact with people in Hackney, and I believe that the position is far worse now in 1988 than it was in 1979. Children in Hackney used to have good grammar schools, which gave them a passport to the future, to a good career and a better life. Unfortunately, today they do not have that opportunity.
Secondly, because my constituency is in the outer London borough of Bexley, it borders the Greenwich boundary of ILEA. The Opposition may tell us that parents do not object to the continuation of ILEA and that they want to continue to be part of it, but my postbag is heavy with mail from people from Thamesmead on the Greenwich side who want their children to go to schools in Bexley because the standards there are far better and the opportunities greater, and they want the best for their children. In the past few months, many parents have written to me in connection with the borough boundary review.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evennett: I am sorry, but I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who would not give way earlier to me. Time is short.
Many parents from both sides of the border boundary have written to me fearful that a change in the boundary will put them into ILEA, with all the consequences that that will have for their children's education.
We do not need the opinion polls. We have letters from parents who are worried about being in ILEA. Parents may not take this matter up with all their representatives on the Opposition Benches, because they know that they will not get sympathy. They know that dogma will rule in these cases.
In places such as Thamesmead, there is real concern on the part of parents for their children's education. They want better standards and welcome the provisions of the Government's Education Reform Bill which will raise standards and set a curriculum for the schools. We must look forward to the future of the children of London—a future that has been regrettably neglected by large areas of ILEA in the past decade or so. We cannot sit back and allow that to happen. It is not acceptable for the parents, the children, the ratepayers or the taxpayers. We must never forget that the standards we want from those who educate our children will be such as to provide them with

a passport for the future. They have not been offered that in the recent past in inner London. The only way forward must be reform. I welcome the abolition of ILEA; the sooner it comes the better.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had a lively and interesting debate — interesting in the sense that every Conservative Member representing a constituency in inner London who has spoken has expressed reservations about the Secretary of State's proposals. We may not see that reflected in the Division Lobby tonight, but we shall hear their fears echoed in every house in inner London. The views expressed by Conservative Members will, I am sure, be reproduced by many other people. The Secretary of State does not have the support of his inner-London colleagues who have deigned to turn up and participate in the debate.
We have witnessed a couple of sideshows, too. There was the sideshow about who represents the militant centre of British politics. I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) on winning that battle. I do not know whether it was a precursor of other events, but I understand that she recently refused to share a platform with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). If so, she has at least had the opportunity tonight to speak first, rather than looking for an alternative platform, as she did on that occasion. It is lovely to see the forces of moderation working so closely together.
The other sideshow has been the battle for the leadership of the Conservative party. Some were offering odds before tonight's debate — I notice that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has walked in on cue—on who would succeed the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister as the next leader of the Conservative party. Two of the three contestants have spoken in tonight's debate. The right hon. Member for Henley and the Secretary of State are now offered odds that are much more favourable than before; and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is now regarded by the bookmakers as more of a potential favourite, merely because he had the good sense—unlike the other two—not to utter a word tonight and to be happy that he got the outcome that he wanted. If I may offer a word of advice to the Secretary of State—

Mr. Straw: Do that.

Mr. Fatchett: As my hon. Friend knows, I take a keen interest in the right hon. Gentleman's career. I notice that, recently, he has had to make one or two concessions first to his right hon. Friends, and then yesterday to my hon. Friends in the Committee on the subject of higher education. Perhaps those concessions were also made to the world of higher education outside. I suspect that, if the right hon. Gentleman's campaign for the Conservative leadership continues in this way, he will become the political equivalent of Eddie Edwards in the winter Olympics: he will not take off, but he will get considerable publicity in the process.
Conservative hon. Members have advanced two main arguments this evening. First, they have said that ILEA has failed to provide a good education service; and, secondly, that it has failed to provide it at an acceptable cost. My hon. Friends have already discussed those arguments, and I want to examine them in detail. They


may be viewed in general terms, but it is crucial that we also examine them in an historical context that goes back a number of years. It goes back particularly to 1985, when the noble Lord Joseph decided that we should have an elected Inner London education authority. The right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley were members of that Cabinet and supported that decision, so we have to ask whether ILEA, against those two criteria, has deteriorated substantially during the past three years.
One could come even closer than April 1985, to 1 December 1987, when the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, in the Second Reading debate on the Education Reform Bill, did not argue for the abolition of ILEA. In one of the flourishes of rhetoric for which the Minister has become so well known, she described ILEA as a model authority. She clearly believes in model building but also, eight weeks later, in model destruction. It might be useful to hear what has happened to the Minister of State to cause such a substantial change of mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that the Secretary of State could not be accused of consistency, but nor can the Minister of State when she shifts her ground so noticeably in such a short time.
We have to look at the general facts, and at the changes. Virtually every Conservative Member used examination results in ILEA as the only criterion against which to judge a good education service. There was no reference to primary education, nursery education, special needs or adult education, and on all those services ILEA does well, or better than average. However, let us look at the examination results figures. If those figures are weighted for socio-economic factors, ILEA does not come 86th out of 94 or, as the Secretary of State cheaply tried to say earlier, bottom. It comes higher.
The Sheffield university figures produced in 1987 show ILEA alongside average performing local education authorities. It compares with Oxfordshire and Hampshire and, although we do not have the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) — here, it compares with Kent. We have not heard an argument for the abolition of those authorities. ILEA also compares favourably with Bromley and Bexley. I understand why the Conservative party might argue for certain parts of the Bexley borough to be abolished, but I have never heard an argument for the abolition of Bexley local education authority. In later Sheffield figures, a third of the authorities are deemed to be efficient in examination terms, and that third includes ILEA.
These further figures have not been referred to, so I shall go into them in some detail. Since 1964, ILEA has been testing 11-year-olds in maths, English and verbal reasoning. Those results have been calculated by the National Foundation of Educational Research. They show that in the mid-1960s ILEA achieved a rating of 102, which is well above the national average. In 1970, that figure had fallen to 95. By 1980, it had again increased to 100 and it has stayed above that figure ever since. There has been no change or deterioration since the decision was taken in April 1985 to continue with ILEA. On the statistics, ILEA is not an under-performing authority. When that is taken alongside the provision in primary, nursery, adult and youth services, ILEA has a record of which it can be proud.
The other argument used by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends is that ILEA is expensive. But they do not say and cannot argue that the overall costs have become more expensive since the Joseph decision to maintain ILEA. The figures from the beginning of this decade show that expenditure on ILEA has increased less than that on the metropolitan districts and shire counties. If the Government base their case on the figures from the early 1980s, it is not only ILEA but the shire counties and metropolitan districts that should be abolished. But one must be careful when using that sort of logic with this Government because the next Bill will abolish those districts and shire counties.
Figures also show that provision in London — a capital city with its attendant problems—will be much more expensive. We have seen that in terms of social services and the police, and we know it to be true for educational provision because of demographic reasons.
The Government give figures of costs per child. I am not surprised by the cost per child in inner London, nor am I embarrassed by it. We believe in investing in education and in our children. With all the social disadvantages that exist in a large capital city, the social policy that provides equality of opportunity is one which invests in the education of those youngsters. We are not embarrassed about that; we are proud. If we have opened up opportunities for youngsters in London, we can say, "We have achieved that and Conservative Members have resisted it."
When Conservative Members talk to us about the cost per child and say that it is too much, many London parents recognise that for the humbug that it is. That comes from a party which, almost without exception, decided on the opt-out principle in practice many years ago. Conservative Members opted out of the state system and sent their children to private schools. The sums that they spend on their children's education are much greater than those spent in inner London.

Mr. Martin Flannery: What about assisted places?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend mentions the assisted places scheme, and the figures prove his point. We are not embarrassed by the cost of inner-London education. If it has provided greater opportunities, we applaud and welcome it, and we will continue to fight for it.
With those two arguments, the Government's case has been threadbare. There could have been a third argument. There could have been a queue of people going to Elizabeth house, knocking on the door and saying to the Secretary of State, "We want ILEA abolished." Parents would have to do it that way because the Secretary of State does not visit inner-London schools. He has three junior Ministers and they have visited six inner-London schools in the period when he has visited one. Ministers have visited six out of 1,000 schools, so parents would have to trek to Elizabeth house to see the Secretary of State and put their argument. But there is no demand from parents that ILEA should be abolished.
Individual parents were the largest single group to respond to the consultative process, accounting for 41 per cent. of the total. How many parents objected to the Government's plans to change educational provision in inner London? The answer is 99·8 per cent. Even this Government could not rig a ballot and say that that is not


a substantial majority. There are, of course, other figures. An opinion poll from Wandsworth shows that 76 per cent. of parents are satisfied with the educational provision.
Last week we debated the rate capping of ILEA. I always believe that there is a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of Conservative Members when they talk about the costs of inner-London education to the taxpayers. They have stopped the taxpayer from contributing to children's education in London.
In the course of that debate, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said:
the Government will have a political problem on their hands in trying to convince some London parents." —[Official Report, 10 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 469.]
I believe that that is something of an understatement, but it is a move in the right direction. The Government will have a political problem on their hands when they try to convince a majority of parents in London that they should favour the abolition of ILEA. In this context, some equals most.
The Government talk about parent power. When are they going to consult inner London parents and when are they going to give those parents a right to a ballot on this decision? I hope that the fears of the hon. Member for Buckingham will be confirmed by such a ballot and that he will support such a confirmation.

Mr. George Walden: I think that it is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman to quote my conclusion without quoting my premises. I said that there was educational apathy in inner London and my premise was that that apathy had been encouraged by the Labour party and by ILEA. My other premise was that the low expectations of ILEA are, unfortunately, reflected in the socially low expectations among the parents. For those reasons, plus the fact that ILEA is used as a gigantic propaganda machine, I believe that it is possible that the Government will have political problems. Let us stick to the premises as well as the conclusion.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman is demonstrating an arrogance towards inner-London parents. If he is fearful of apathy, why does he not allow apathy the opportunity to show itself in the ballot box? If that opportunity is provided, the hon. Gentleman knows that inner-London parents will vote for ILEA.

Mr. John Marshall: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: No, time is short and I must allow the Minister time to reply.
London parents are worried that there will not be a strategic authority to provide and plan for education in inner London. There is also the fear in all the poorer boroughs of inner London about the redistributive impact of abolishing ILEA. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) expressed that fear earlier and also convincingly argued that the Secretary of State only talked about a formula for future grant allocation. The Secretary of State did not give a commitment — the Minister of State must give that commitment tonight—on whether the poorer boroughs will be made poorer as a result of the abolition of ILEA. The Government's record leads to one conclusion: they will take further money out of Hackney and the other poorer inner-London boroughs.
If all else fails — all else has failed in the Government's intellectual argument — the Government

fall back on the simple arrogance of mandate. They say, "We have a majority and we are going to drive it through." They may try to drive it through, but they have no moral authority for the decision that they are taking. That authority is not contained in their manifesto because it contained no reference to the total abolition of ILEA. Indeed, there was no reference in the consultative document or in the Bill to total abolition. Thai absence was noted by the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford, who launched a campaign for the total abolition of ILEA. If the Bill had allowed for total abolition in the simple form, their campaign would have been unnecessary.
It is totally hypocritical and misleading of the Government to argue that they had a mandate for abolition in the first place. They have no such mandate and they have no popular support for the decision that they are taking.
There is no mandate for abolition. There are no sound educational arguments. There is certainly no blueprint for future provision at borough level— parents are being forced, without any say whatever, to accept a leap in the dark. When The Economist said on 30 January that
the plan to emasculate ILEA smacks more of political spite than educational strategy",
it was right. The measure represents yet another defeat for the Secretary of State—about that we shed no tears—but, more importantly, the measure represents a defeat for the orderly provision of education in inner London. It is those children and their parents who will be the losers. To protect their interests, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Government's proposal.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his farsightedness and reliability, and his consistent view that education should be devolved to the boroughs in inner London. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), I am a convert to that view. Like them, I believed that ILEA, in the face of a Government who could so successfully return the powers of the Greater London council to the boroughs, would take heed and mend its ways, but sadly it did not. Seven years later, we have exactly the same failings in the Inner London education authority that we had in the years when some of us thought that it could mend its ways.
I should like to read two quotations. Mr. Steven Cowan, now the ILEA member for Westminster, North but a prospective member at the time, said, according to London Labour Briefing of May 1986:
The ILEA is the most bureaucratic LEA in the country because of its double layer of officials at County Hall and at Divisional Offices … all too often it leads to the erection of a professional barrier between the community and elected politicians".
Those are the words of a current member of I LEA. I should also like to quote, as many other hon. Members have done, the leader of ILEA, Mr. Neil Fletcher, who told the Socialist Education Association on 30 September 1987:
Does our system let down these children? For too many of them, if we are honest, the answer is yes. Why are working


class children still not doing as well as their middle class peers? I am doubtful as to how far we should take socio-economic background as a determinant excuse".
Those are the words of the people who are currently running ILEA.

Mr. Straw: As the Minister is quoting various people, will she quote her own words in the House on 1 December? She said:
The Government's aim is to improve both the quality and the cost-effectiveness of education in inner london. That would not be achieved at this stage by imposing educational responsibilities on unwilling boroughs."—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 856.]
What change was there between 1 December and 4 February?

Mrs. Rumbold: A clear sign that other boroughs such as Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea were making plans to become independent education authorities, so they would destabilise the current ILEA. I had serious concerns about the effect of that upon the remaining authorities. I should like to refer —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Give the hon. Lady a chance.

Mrs. Rumbold: I should like to refer—

Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: No. I should like to answer the debate. I do not have much time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made the point that we need to ensure efficiency of borough administration and administrative structures. The development plans that boroughs will be required to publish will have to set out the proposed administrative organisation. We share my right hon. Friend's view of the importance of the matter. I assure him that we shall devote carefull attention to that aspect of boroughs' plans.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) stated that 44 per cent. of pupils in Tower Hamlets are from Bangladeshi families. We accept that boroughs will need to continue to make provision for children whose first language is not English. That is one of the subjects that we shall discuss with the boroughs concerned.
I remind hon. Members that much of the Inner London education authority's existing provision is funded by the section 11 grant. Of course, that grant will continue to be available to boroughs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) mentioned his concern about the Horniman museum. Obviously, we recognise the quality of that museum and of the Geffrye museum, which the Inner London education authority also maintained. We shall most certainly consider the arrangements that will be most appropriate for securing the future of those museums.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, in relation to the unit that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned that he will set up, that the London residuary body would need to have some additional education experts seconded to it. We have established a special unit within our Department to take forward the necessary discussions and arrangements as quickly as possible. In doing that, we wish to seek the views of all those with experience in the range of education provision. We certainly look to local professionals, above

all the head teachers and other teachers in the boroughs, to contribute to and to comment on the development plans that boroughs will be required to produce.
The Inner London education authority's difficulties are not of a wholly different order from those of other inner-city areas, but it still continues to spend 45 per cent. more per pupil than Manchester spends, and 83 per cent. more per pupil than Birmingham spends. Is all that money going on education in the classroom? Eased by the extent to which ILEA can achieve economies of scale that are not possible in smaller authorities, of course it is not.
Why else does ILEA have to employ two and a half administrators for every one administrator employed by the average local education authority? The quotation that I gave from Mr. Steven Cowan goes some way towards explaining that. As for devolution of education to boroughs, many educational divisions of the Inner London education authority are mirrored by boroughs. Of course, there are 10 divisions, and only three share more than two boroughs. Most of them are equal and conterminous with the divisions of the Inner London education authority.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) talked about the Metropolitan police. He said that, because of the capital city's difficulties, it is impossible to compare the costs of the Inner London education authority. He prayed in aid the argument that the Metropolitan police are much more expensive. Hon. Members should note that London's policing problems are different from those in the rest of the country. The London area has about 45 per cent. of all registered drug addicts, about 50 per cent. of robberies, and 75 per cent. of all armed robberies. On 1985–86 estimates, costs per police officer are about 38 per cent. more than the England average. The Inner London education authority is spending about 50 per cent. more per secondary pupil than the outer-London borough average. The Inner London education authority is still failing disastrously.
If overspending had been the only charge against ILEA, it would have been grave enough, but, above all, that extravagance pays no significant dividends in the classroom. That means that a better way must be found.
Opposition Members have had a great deal of fun adducing all sorts of things from the advice provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate. They appear to rely more for their judgments on the newspapers than on the hard evidence of published HMI reports. Certain phrases toll like a bell through HMI reports on ILEA's schools—for example,
despite a generous staffing establishment
and
no apparent shortages of suitable apparatus and equipment",
Or
in spite of good provision in terms of staffing, accommodation, ancillary support and equipment, materials and books, and of the offer of an extensive in-service programme".
All too frequently the reports go on to reveal serious shortcomings about what goes on both inside and outside the classroom. Only last summer, there was a report of an absolute fiasco that took place because of the poor organisation of a recent Ramayana Asian festival in Battersea park. It was set up—

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister has quoted selectively from an HMI report. Will she now publish that report and allow


the country to see what it said about primary education, the youth service, special needs provision and adult education — indeed, what it said about all that ILEA does well in relation to research and provision? Will she publish that report and allow the full picture to come out, or will she continue to quote selectively as she has done already?

Mrs. Rumbold: Everything that I have quoted from HMI reports has been published. However, the hon. Gentleman quoted from a confidential summary of a selection of reports sent to my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I do not choose to quote from that. I choose to quote from the recent experience of the children—

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No—this is an ILEA debate, not a Scottish debate.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. George Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose—

Mr. Bernie Grant: rose—

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are interrupting from a sedentary position and it is difficult to hear.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I remind you that you constantly remind us at Scottish Question Time that this is a British Parliament —[Interruption.] We rather resent being told that this is an ILEA debate and not a Scottish debate.
Secondly, for the Minister to say that the report is confidential, but then to quote from it is surely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Order Paper, which says that this is an ILEA debate.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that Scottish Members will enjoy the—

Mr. Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been a good-natured debate so far.

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall continue with my story — [HON. MEMBERS: "Fairy story"] It is not a fairy story; it is a fact. I am talking about what happened at the Ramayana Asian festival in Battersea, where it is reported:
Children were left sitting around for hours and could not see the displays. Aimed at stimulating multi-cultural awareness, it may have had the reverse effect, leaving youngsters dispirited and bored, the authority has been told.
`It seemed to us that the only well-organised part of the festival was the tent dispensing free wine and food to invited guests,' teachers, parents, and other staff from one school, Cardwell primary, Woolwich, have protested to the ILEA.
`Children worked hard for several weeks preparing their puppets and rehearsing for what should have been the exciting climax to their labours.'

I do not deny that there is much good provision within the Inner London education authority's vast empire. Hon. Members have talked about adult education, and further education. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) talked about her experiences as a parent of a child with special education needs. Of course, we shall look at that provision. Every local education authority is under a duty to secure adequate provision for children with special education needs. Every local education authority in the country meets that duty by co-operating with other authorities, as the hon. Member for Greenwich said.
Even the Inner London education authority does not and cannot make every form of specialised provision for every form of handicap. The practice in inner-London boroughs will reflect what happens in outer London. We regard that as a particularly important matter which we will discuss with all the boroughs and which we will expect to see dealt with in some detail in the boroughs' development plans.
I must tell Opposition Members that, in the area of crucial concern to employers and parents — the secondary age group — ILEA's provision is admittedly generally poor. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said that examination results are not everything and must be interpreted with great care. However, they are an important indicator for parents and employers. I can tell the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) that not long ago, when Lambeth council considered the provisions that ILEA was planning for Lambeth, a report to council members stated:
Over one third of Lambeth's children are educated outside the Borough. The Council believes that these proposals could perpetuate the denial of accessible secondary education to large sections of Lambeth's community if steps are not taken to improve local education.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Holland: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: That authority is clearly looking after the interests of its children. I have more sympathy with my hon. Friends who are concerned about authorities that may be too irresponsible to be entrusted with children's education. However, I can tell my hon. Friends that they should remember that some powerful safeguards are included in the Education Reform Bill. It includes the national curriculum and wider parental choice.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: No. The hon. Gentleman continually comes into the Chamber in the middle of debates and always wants to intervene. I am glad to say that the lion. Member for Greenwich took advantage of his gallantry and spoke first—and about time, too.
The delegation of powers to governing bodies, heads and the right to opt out are also included in the Bill.
I want to quote again from that wonderful Mr. Steven Cowan, member of ILEA. Indeed, this is even more important, as it appears in London Labour Briefing. He said:
Progress needs to be made to reduce the proportion of school places under the control of the Church. Their presence and practices are racist and segregationist. We should aim to achieve a secular comprehensive and community-based education in this country.
[HON. MEMBERS: "We cannot hear."] If you cannot hear, it is because you are not listening—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to be able to hear.

Mrs. Rumbold: I apologise. Obviously you were listening, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Members to whom I was referring were not.
I want to address a few words to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). I understand his concern that some boroughs may not be capable of providing an effective education service. My hon. Friend said that he remained in favour of opting out as the basis for a transfer of educational responsibilities. However, where opting out proposals are likely to receive support from a significant number of boroughs, the case for a single, clean break must become unanswerable. A rump ILEA or my hon. Friend's suggestion of some form of mini-ILEA would leave matters in a state of uncertainty and would not provide the basis for improvement that he agrees is needed. In the development plans that we are expecting, we will want to consider management structure and the nature of some of the senior appointments.
Opposition Members referred to parent power and parents' wishes. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that we should ask the parents and take their views on board. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, in the fortnight since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's proposals, we have received about 200 letters.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: We received 200 letters objecting to my right hon. Friend's proposals. The Southfields by-election in Wandsworth not long ago was fought entirely on the matter of education in London. At the time, the slogans were "Labour for education". What happened? The Conservatives won, and we doubled our majority.
The crucial point is that action should be taken as swiftly as possible to establish clear responsibilities for inner London's education service among the boroughs. That is why the Government's proposals are right, and why I ask the House to support them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The original Question was the motion on the Inner London education authority—

Mr. Tony Banks: This has nothing  to do with the educational interests of the people of London. It is all to do with a couple of political shysters.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Waddington): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 339.

Division No. 185]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Margaret


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Anderson, Donald
Bell, Stuart


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Ashdown, Paddy
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashton, Joe
Blair, Tony


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boyes, Roland


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Bradley, Keith





Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hood, Jimmy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howells, Geraint


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hoyle, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Janner, Greville


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
John, Brynmor


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clay, Bob
Lambie, David


Clelland, David
Lamond, James


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Coleman, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lewis, Terry


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cousins, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Cox, Tom
Livsey, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
McAllion, John


Cunlitfe, Lawrence
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr John
McCartney, Ian


Dalyell, Tarn
Macdonald, Calum A.


Darling, Alistair
McFall, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McKelvey, William


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Bob


Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Douglas, Dick
Madden, Max


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marek, Dr John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Eadie, Alexander
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Eastham, Ken
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meale, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fearn, Ronald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fisher, Mark
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morley, Elliott


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
Murphy, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Nellist, Dave


Galbraith, Sam
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter L.


Gordon, Mildred
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grocott, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Harman, Ms Harriet
Randall, Stuart


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Haynes, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Richardson, Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Henderson, Doug
Robertson, George


Hinchliffe, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rogers, Allan


Holland, Stuart
Rooker, Jeff


Home Robertson, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Sedgemore, Brian
Wall, Pat


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wilson, Brian


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Straw, Jack



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Alun Michael and


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Mr. Frank Cook.


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Chope, Christopher


Aitken, Jonathan
Churchill, Mr


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amos, Alan
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cope, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Cormack, Patrick


Atkins, Robert
Couchman, James


Atkinson, David
Cran, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Critchley, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baldry, Tony
Curry, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dicks, Terry


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Bob


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Durant, Tony


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dykes, Hugh


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Farr, Sir John


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Favell, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forth, Eric


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Franks, Cecil


Buck, Sir Antony
Freeman, Roger


Budgen, Nicholas
French, Douglas


Burt, Alistair
Fry, Peter


Butcher, John
Gale, Roger


Butler, Chris
Gardiner, George


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carttiss, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Cash, William
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorst, John


Chapman, Sydney
Gow, Ian





Gower, Sir Raymond
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maclean, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gregory, Conal
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Madel, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Major, Rt Hon John


Grist, Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Ground, Patrick
Mans, Keith


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maples, John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Marland, Paul


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marlow, Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hannam, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mates, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Maude, Hon Francis


Harris, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hawkins, Christopher
Mellor, David


Hayes, Jerry
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Miller, Hal


Hayward, Robert
Mills, Iain


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Heddle, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moate, Roger


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Monro, Sir Hector


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hill, James
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hind, Kenneth
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Holt, Richard
Moss, Malcolm


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mudd, David


Howard, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Paice, James


Irvine, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Irving, Charles
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Jack, Michael
Pawsey, James


Jackson, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Janman, Tim
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jessel, Toby
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Price, Sir David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Redwood, John


Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rhodes James, Robert


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knapman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knox, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lang, Ian
Rost, Peter


Latham, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Scott, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger






Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speller, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Squire, Robin
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Walters, Dennis


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stern, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wells, Bowen


Stokes, John
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Sumberg, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Wiggin, Jerry


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Woodcock, Mike


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Neil
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thornton, Malcolm
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Trippier, David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Trotter, Neville

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 220.

Division No. 186]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Aitken, Jonathan
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amess, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amos, Alan
Buck, Sir Antony


Arbuthnot, James
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Butler, Chris


Aspinwall, Jack
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Batiste, Spencer
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, Mr


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Benyon, W.
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Conway, Derek


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope,John


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Cran, James


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Critchley, Julian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brazier, Julian
Curry, David


Bright, Graham
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)





Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dicks, Terry
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dorrell, Stephen
Irvine, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Irving, Charles


Dover, Den
Jack, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Jackson, Robert


Durant, Tony
Janman, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Jessel, Toby


Emery, Sir Peter
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evennett, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Fallon, Michael
Key, Robert


Farr, Sir John
Kilfedder, James


Favell, Tony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Kirkhope, Timothy


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knapman, Roger


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Forman, Nigel
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knowles, Michael


Forth, Eric
Knox, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lang, Ian


Franks, Cecil
Latham, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Lawrence, Ivan


French, Douglas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fry, Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gale, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gardiner, George
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gill, Christopher
Lightbown, David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lilley, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Goodlad, Alastair
Lord, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
McCrindle, Robert


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gow, Ian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gower, Sir Raymond
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Maclean, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Gregory, Conal
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Madel, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Major, Rt Hon John


Grist, Ian
Malins, Humfrey


Ground, Patrick
Mans, Keith


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maples, John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Marland, Paul


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marlow, Tony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hannam, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mates, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Maude, Hon Francis


Harris, David
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hawkins, Christopher
Mellor, David


Hayes, Jerry
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Miller, Hal


Hayward, Robert
Mills, Iain


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Heddle, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moate, Roger


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Monro, Sir Hector


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hill, James
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hind, Kenneth
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Holt, Richard
Moss, Malcolm


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mudd, David


Howard, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)






Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stokes, John


Page, Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Paice, James
Sumberg, David


Patnick, Irvine
Summerson, Hugo


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Portillo, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Price, Sir David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thorne, Neil


Redwood, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Renton, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tracey, Richard


Riddick, Graham
Trippier, David


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rost, Peter
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rowe, Andrew
Walden, George


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ryder, Richard
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walters, Dennis


Scott, Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Ray


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Sims, Roger
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilshire, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Woodcock, Mike


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Squire, Robin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stanley, Rt Hon John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Alton, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buckley, George J.


Armstrong, Hilary
Caborn, Richard


Ashdown, Paddy
Callaghan, Jim


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Battle, John
Cartwright, John


Beckett, Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bell, Stuart
Clay, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald


Blair, Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bradley, Keith
Corbyn, Jeremy





Cousins, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cox, Tom
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Crowther, Stan
McAllion, John


Cryer, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Cummings, John
McCartney, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cunningham, Dr John
McFall, John


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Darling, Alistair
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McTaggart, Bob


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alexander
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute


Fatchett, Derek
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fearn, Ronald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliott


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galbraith, Sam
O'Neill, Martin


Galloway, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gordon, Mildred
Prescott, John


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Grocott, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Reid, Dr John


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Henderson, Doug
Robertson, George


Hinchliffe, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rogers, Allan


Holland, Stuart
Rooker, Jeff


Home Robertson, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hood, Jimmy
Rowlands, Ted


Howells, Geraint
Ruddock, Joan


Hoyle, Doug
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Janner, Greville
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Kirkwood, Archy
Straw, Jack


Lambie, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lamond, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Leighton, Ron
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Turner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Litherland, Robert
Wall, Pat


Livsey, Richard
Walley, Joan






Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Worthington, Tony


Wareing, Robert N.
Wray, Jimmy


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wigley, Dafydd



Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Allen McKay and


Winnick, David
Mr. Alun Michael.


Wise, Mrs Audrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes that the Inner London Education Authority has combined profligate overspending with a persistent failure to raise standards of education in its schools; recognises the urgent need for improvements; welcomes the Government's proposals for the transfer of educational functions to the inner London councils in 1990 as the best means of building an education service of high quality for the people of inner London; and approves the decision to table amendments to the Education Reform Bill for this purpose.

Education Reform Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
That the Order of 1st February be varied by substituting, for paragraphs 1 and 2(1), the following:—

`Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 8th March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 8th March may continue until Ten p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 9th March.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four alloted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.'
I shall not detain the House long. We have already had a vigorous debate on the principles of the Government's proposals for ILEA, which have just been approved by a majority of almost 120.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear on 1 February, the main timetable motion for the Education Reform Bill was exceptionally generous. It allowed for a total of over 200 hours to be spent discussing the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee.
The Government recognise that the amendments that we have tabled to part III of the Bill are substantial. They amount to 25 new clauses, replacing nine existing clauses, with amendments to a further three clauses. We are therefore continuing our generous approach to allocation of time for the Bill by proposing two additional days in Committee and an additional day on Report—which is in addition to the day on the Floor of the House which we have just had—to add to the three on Report which the House has already approved.
The Opposition cannot reasonably complain —although no doubt they will—about the additional time that we are allocating. Before they try to argue that we should be pushing the reform of inner London's education into the distant future by introducing a separate Bill next Session—which I understand some would like—or the one after that, let me remind them that all Governments from time to time have found it necessary to introduce significant amendments to legislation already before the House.
There is, of course, a good Labour precedent for that—the Industry Bill of 1975. I referred to it in moving terms earlier this afternoon, only to discover that, as a civil servant, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) had drafted the Bill. He must have done that with tremendous enthusiasm, as the Bill was a major measure and there was a major change to it while it was under the guillotine.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When will the Secretary of State sing a new tune? He keeps telling

us how expensive ILEA has been. Will he now tell us what savings he expects to make as a result of the introduction of this piece of legislation?

Mr. Baker: When one has a good tune, one should stick to it. There is, as I say, a good precedent in what the Labour Government did in 1975. As always, we have improved on their practice, because on that occasion they did not table the amendments and new clauses before they moved the guillotine motion. We have done better, by tabling them yesterday.
As a result of the motion, the amount of time that will now be provided for debate on the legislation, on the Floor of the House and in Committee, will exceed 250 hours, which is probably the most generous timetable for 20 or 30 years. I need to take advice from the Clerks on whether it is 20 or 30 years, but this is certainly one of the most generous timetables that the House has ever been given on a major Bill.

Mr. James Pawsey: Can my right hon. Friend say how that amount of time compares with that allocated for the 1944 Act?

Mr. Baker: The amount of time spent debating the 1944 Act was 50 to 60 hours. We shall debate this Bill for four or five times as long as that. The time spent in Committee on all the education legislation introduced since 1979 does not amount to 250 hours, so the House cannot complain that the measure is not being debated fully, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. We shall also have four days to discuss it on Report.
It is appropriate that the time allocated should be generous, because the Bill contains a major set of reforms that the education service desperately needs. That is why it should get on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The Secretary of State has explained the extension of time—[Interruption.]—that is to be given to the consideration of the abolition of ILEA by the guillotine motion. It is better than nothing—

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible to ask those who do not want to listen to this part of the debate to clear the Chamber?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I do not think it is right to ask hon. Members to clear the Chamber, but is is right for me to ask them to carry on their conversations in a lower tone of voice so that we can hear the Front Bench.

Mr. Dobson: The arrangement that has been agreed with the Government is certainly an improvement on what was originally intended. But what was originally intended was to introduce a limited number of amendments relating to ILEA—not the proposition to abolish it altogether.
As one of those Members elected to represent people in inner London, I do not believe that the people of inner London, or their children, have got what they deserve from the motion.
The people of inner London and their children were entitled to a separate Bill to consider the abolition of the 118-year-old education authority. They should have been consulted about whether it should be abolished, about the Government's proposals, and about the details of the


clauses. They were entitled to advise the Government, if they were prepared to listen, or anyone else, of the likely impact of those proposals and to seek changes. The motion will not give them the opportunity to do that.
The electorates of inner London have not had the chance to vote on the proposition that ILEA should be abolished. No one has a mandate to abolish ILEA. No Tory Member of Parliament put this proposition in his election address. No Tory ILEA member put it to his electorate. No Tory borough council has put it to the borough council electorate. It has never been put to the people of inner London. When the question of the future of ILEA and of its record have been put to the electors, they have always voted to maintain the authority as it is, under the control of the Labour party.
When that fact was put before the House earlier, it provoked the comment from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) — made from a sedentary position—that they must be mad. That is the basis on which the Government are going forward — that the people of inner London are unfit to decide for themselves the nature and arrangements for education in inner London.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has made it clear that he will not give way.

Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that if one hon. Member attacks another, he gives way to enable that Member to defend himself?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is a convention, but it is not obligatory for the hon. Member who makes the attack to give way.

Mr. Greenway: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has misquoted me. I did not say that the people of inner London were mad, full stop. I said that they were mad to vote Labour.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the point has been made.

Mr. Dobson: I will try to get on with my speech because there are a number of hon. Members who represent people in London and who want to take part in the debate. They were kept out of the previous debate by Tories, half of whom represent seats outside inner London, and in some cases outside London altogether. The Tories cannot muster anyone from inner London who is prepared to support the proposition.
The Secretary of State said that he is introducing measures which will remove nine of the Bill's clauses, amend three others, and introduce 25 new clauses, eight of which relate to staff. That latter point is one of the reasons why people in inner London are so perturbed about this proposition. If we had a Conservative Government, they would subscribe to the traditional Conservative proposition that change is always dubious

and one should proceed with change only if one can guarantee that, at the other end of the process of change, there will be substantial improvements. That is the bedrock of Conservative philosophy.
The fact is that the Government cannot guarantee any improvement whatever in educational provision in inner London. Indeed, we can almost guarantee that it will worsen. A reason why it is likely to worsen, certainly during the transitional period between now and 1992—two years after the boroughs will take over if the measure is passed—is that the vast proportion of the staff will have to devote most of their time and effort to protecting their jobs and ensuring that those jobs continue to exist.
If what has happened in the Tory reorganisation of the Health Service is anything to go by, the staff will go through a ludicrous stage of having to reapply for the jobs that they are already doing. The education of our children in inner London depends on having staff who are skilled, well trained and enthusiastic and who have a high morale. This process of change is bound to reduce staff morale, so education is bound to suffer as an automatic consequence of the process of change.
We were privileged tonight to listen to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who made his latest prepared speech in his continuing campaign to be the next leader of the Tory party, but he seems to have sloped off home. We heard all sorts of theories about local government and the problems of the inner cities, but I should like to hear from him, the Secretary of State or any Tory present what improvements they think this measure will bring about for the children, for example, at Argyle junior mixed and infant school in the King's Cross part of my constituency.
The school has 324 children, many of whom come from poor homes, which is shown by the fact that no fewer than 274 of them are entitled to free school meals. Two hundred and fifty-nine of them come from homes where the mother tongue is not English and 63 do not come from anything that any hon. Member would recognise as a home because they live in hotels, bed-and-breakfast accommodation or other hostel accommodation at night. What improvement in the education of those children is likely to result from a period of chaos and change in the education system in inner London?
That is not an isolated case. There are more than 10,000 children living in temporary accommodation and attending ILEA schools.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Who put them there?

Mr. Dobson: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Henley. He is responsible because his housing measures, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, created homelessness in London in the first place. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with that, what about the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) who also served in that post and continued to perpetrate the housing policies which have left so many of the people whom I represent homeless? Unless the Government address themselves to the genuine problems of the real children of inner London, not mythical ones invented by themselves and a few Tory protagonists, the parents, children and teachers will treat the Government with contempt.
It is certain that the Government will carry any Division tonight, just as they carried the earlier Division


and just as they will manage it in Committee. They have the majority to do so. However, the Government should remember that, even within the best traditions of the Tory party, powerful people have tempered the way in which they have dealt with the poor and the helpless.

Mr. Tony Banks: Not this bunch.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is correct.
We seek the abandonment of the Government's proposals. If the Government intend to go ahead with a Bill to abolish ILEA, they should at least consult the people of inner London. They should then come forward with a well-argued, properly thought-out Bill, instead of this lousy, botched job, put together in a fortnight.
The creation of 117 years of effort by the teachers, parents and educationists of London deserves better than to be shoved aside as a result of a fortnight's botching by the Department of Education and Science under the leadership—if that is the right word—of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Perhaps we can now get back to reality.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke about a large number of pupils of the Argyle school who live in hotels. I should remind him that, according to the latest figures, the London borough of Camden has more than 500 dwellings that have been empty for more than six months. Before the Opposition say that that borough has no money to repair them, I would point out that Camden has rent arrears of more than £5 million. Moreover, Camden has paid out more than £1 million to hotel owners for rooms that were never occupied.
I believe that my right hon. Friend is being too generous in the amount of time that he is allocating for the ILEA abolition clauses. We are dealing with a local education authority and not the 159th member of the United Nations. However, frankly, looking at many of the proceedings of ILEA it would appear that it is a world power instead of an education authority.
It is true that, for more than 50 years, the children of London had a good education authority in the form of the London county council. In those days, it was run by men and women who were dedicated to looking after the interests of children and not flying away with strange theories. The chairman of the county council was wholly non-political and behaved in a respectable manner. It had an outstanding succession of leaders. One of those was the man who was a political opponent of mine for many years, Ike Hayward. Ike Hayward would not have allowed half the present members of ILEA through the back door of county hall, let alone to occupy chairmanships.
Let us hear no more nonsense about the education of London's children. Since the creation of ILEA, those children have had a set of people determined to put their own partisan theories before the children's needs. Most independent experts will acknowledge that. I could not care less whether the politics of ILEA was Tory or Labour. Indeed, I remind the House that it did have a period of Conservative leadership.
I have never believed that there was a need for ILEA. If I have a slight grumble about my colleagues on the Front Bench, it is that they did not get rid of ILEA at the

same time as they got rid of the Greater London council. People have said that everyone will be rising up in anger about the Government's decision and that it will be remembered at the next election. In the public meetings in my marginal constituency during the last election campaign, no one even mentioned the defunct GLC. I believe that it is absolutely right that my right hon. Friends have decided to get rid of ILEA by using—

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: In a second. I shall be more courteous than the hon. Gentleman was to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman says that no one raised the matter of the defunct GLC during the election. At any of the public meetings at the election, unique among all Tories in London, did he suggest to his electorate that he wanted to abolish the GLC?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As I have heard others say, "Get it right, Frank." I say firmly that, unlike a large number of my colleagues, I have been on record from the beginning as saying that ILEA should never have been created. I said that when I was in local government, and when I gave evidence to the Herbert commission, and I have never changed my mind on that issue. My constituents know full well where I stood on the GLC and ILEA. They might also wish to know where I stand on the future of Hampstead heath. The sooner it goes to the City of London, the better.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I should like to continue.
I say firmly that the real problem that we now must face is what the children will go through if demonstrations and strikes take place. Let me not hear from the Labour party that the education of London's children will be damaged by the Bill. The damage has been done over the years by the attitude of the London branch of the National Union of Teachers, the record of which has been abysmal. Those who go out on strike, participate in demonstrations and so on are harming the education of London's children. It is not the Government or the House of Commons—it is those who put their political views ahead of the needs of the children.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak. He has spoken once already. I think that we have heard quite enough from him for the moment. I believe that —[Interruption.] I was delighted to give way to a Front-Bench London Member, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I do not think that we want to hear any more about London's education from the west country.
Those of my colleagues who have put this set of clauses through the House must remember one thing — that there will be a campaign of lying, hypocrisy and double dealing aimed at the people of London. I simply ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this: what steps will he take to stop ILEA spending the ratepayers' money, as the GLC did, on political campaigns against the measure? He has a responsibility, which I know he will accept, to keep the limited amount of money that is there


for London's education, limited because of the extravagance of ILEA. That money should be used on education, not on falsehoods in pamphlets. My right hon. Friend must make it clear that the stories now being put about that adult education, music education and special schools are under threat are a complete—

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: In a moment.

Mr. Bruce: It is important.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I know it is important, but occasionally one must try to help hon. Members understand things.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must try to get over the point that we must be certain that the truth is heard by the parents of London. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he makes it clear beyond peradventure that those three subjects above all else—what I call the non-primary and secondary subjects—will not suffer as a result of the proposals? I do not believe that they will suffer, and my right hon. Friend does not, but the other parties in the House will try to spread those stories. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that point on board.

Mr. Chris Smith: In introducing his timetable the Secretary of State told us that he is being exceptionally generous in allowing additional time for debate. I beg to differ. The time that he is allocating for major consideration of a major change to a major Bill is grossly insufficient for two reasons. First, it faiis to give parents and other people of inner London sufficient time in which to make their views known and to have their views and opinions taken while the Government draw up the details of the measure.
The Government have no democratic mandate for the proposal. The proposal was announced in public only two weeks ago. We are told that it will pass through all its stages in the course of the next four or five weeks. That is totally insufficient time properly to consult and canvass the views and opinions of parents in my constituency and in all other constituencies in inner London, to make sure that what the Government are doing, or are not doing, is in accordance with their wishes.
Secondly, the advocated timetable is grossly insufficient for consideration of the detailed and complex issues that arise out of the Government's decision to abolish the Inner London education authority. I shall give one or two examples of such considerations, because they affect my constituents and their children. They are weighty matters that should form part of the House's consideration. The next four or five weeks are not sufficient time in which to get them right. Some of them have been touched on, but not in detail, in the course of our earlier discussions today.
First, how will the financing of education in schools in my area be organised after abolition? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned, many boroughs — mine included — gain from the present redistributive mechanism of ILEA funding. Quite rightly and totally justifiably, ILEA has always been a mechanism

whereby richer boroughs in the centre of London subsidise education in poorer boroughs. My borough benefits considerably. Its contribution to the ILEA budget is £44 million a year. However, it derives £73 million of benefit from the ILEA budget. That is a £29 million gain for the parents, children and students of Islington from the existence of ILEA.
The Secretary of State told us that there will be an assessment of the social and educational needs of each borough when an assessment is made of what sort of financial mechanism shall be established to redistribute funds among boroughs after abolition. But if the present Government's record of making assessments of need, and their record in relation to local government, with grant-related expenditure assessments are anything to go by, even Conservative-controlled boroughs in London find the grant-related expenditure assessments grossly insufficient to meet people's needs. Will the Government use the same sort of bases for establishing educational need when the Inner London education authority is abolished? We need the answers to those questions before we can properly decide on measures for abolition. So far, the Secretary of State has given us no confidence that such proper mechanisms will be in place.
Secondly, we have to ask the Secretary of State where the secondary school children will go. There has been much talk from Conservative Members about secondary school children. There are insufficient secondary school places within the borough boundaries of Islington to accommodate the needs of all the secondary schoolchildren of Islington. That means that secondary school pupils from Islington will have to be placed in schools outside the Islington area. What mechanisms will be established to enable that to happen? What guarantee do the parents of children in Islington have that they will be able to find a school place of their choice? The Government are in favour of open enrolment and I should like to know how that will operate across borough boundaries once the boroughs, rather than ILEA, will be the education authorities.
The third question to which we need an answer before we can make a final assessment of the package of measures in the Bill is, what will happen to further education establishments? I take as an example the north London college, which is based in my constituency. It provides an extremely good service to the 4,041 students who attend it, of whom only 1,615 come from the borough of Islington. The remaining 2,400 come from a variety of boroughs, mainly from other inner-London education boroughs but some from Barnet, Brent, Enfield and even from Hertfordshire.
Therefore, students at the north London college come from a wide catchment area. Who will finance the north London college? What sort of joint arrangements will be made between the boroughs to ensure the pooling of resources to provide a good quality further education service in each of the 24 further education establishments that exist in the ILEA area? What sort of pooling arrangements will there be for students to ensure that proper choice can be available to them so that they can choose the courses that are most suited to their needs?
The principal of north London college wrote only two days ago to the leader of ILEA expressing her concern about the Government's proposals and stating:
Currently there is much co-operation between the 24 FE colleges on curricular and other levels—rationalisation and


effective allocation of resources is relatively easy. The tertiary submissions, amended, need to be re-presented on a wider than borough basis.
The importance of looking at further education on a cross-borough basis is absolutely crucial. However, at the moment there are no firm proposals from the Government to take account of that point.
The same applies to special education. I have a particular concern with special education, having been for 10 years a governor of Colebrooke school for maladjusted children in my constituency. It is one of the finest special schools — not only in London, but anywhere in the world. It has an outstandingly high reputation, as do the other two special schools that are in my constituency. All three draw pupils from a wide range of areas, not just from within the borough of Islington.
It is not good enough for the Minister of State to say as she did in a passing remark in her summing-up of the debate on the earlier motion, "We shall be looking at the question of special education." Well, I should hope so. However, before we make concrete decisions on what will be in the Bill, we need concrete proposals about safeguarding the future of special education for inner-London children on a cross-borough basis. We have no such concrete proposal from the Government at present. So long as that is the case and so long as we have only another four or five weeks of consideration ahead of us, we can have no confidence that proper arrangements will be made when the Bill leaves the House.
Doubtless the Government will reiterate, as they have done today, as they draw up plans for improvements for schools, for funding the 24 further education colleges properly and for being a world leader in standards for special education, that the Inner London education authority is being profligate and must therefore be disbanded. I beg to differ. Indeed, parents and students in my constituency also beg to differ.
Whenever my constituents have written to me, spoken to me, visited my surgery or attended public meetings on this issue, they have said that they want the Inner London education authority to stay. Of course they have criticisms of ILEA. Every education authority can be criticised on some grounds. However, my constituents see the need for ILEA's strategic cross-borough role and the need for substantial levels of spending in inner London. They recognise the need to preserve the standards that the authority achieves at the moment.
The Government's attitude reminds me of a passage in a Berthold Brecht play:
The Government have decided that the people are wrong, and the people must therefore be disbanded.
That is precisely the Government's attitude towards the Inner London education authority. The people of inner London, and the people in my constituency do not want ILEA to be disbanded. They do not want the Government's proposals to go forward and they certainly do not want the proposals to be carried out in the unseemly rush of the next four or five weeks, which is all that the motion allows us.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked what benefits the Education Reform Bill would bring to the children in a particular school in his constituency. It will result in a more successful and cost-effective education

system. We have heard about ILEA expenditure. Opposition Members told us that education expenditure in inner London had to be higher because of the problems of London. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy figures show that ILEA is a financial juggernaut running out of all control, with a record of profligacy that is unprecedented in the history of local government in this country.
If we examine ILEA expenditure, we find that in every respect it is far greater than the expenditure in outer London boroughs. What justification can ILEA have for energy costs in primary schools that are 50 per cent. higher than those in similar schools in outer London? What justification is there for administrative costs in primary schools in ILEA being 89 per cent. greater than those in similar schools in outer-London boroughs? What justification is there for costs for premises-related staff—whoever they may be—being 95 per cent. greater in ILEA than in outer-London boroughs? What justification is there for the costs for educational support staff in secondary schools in ILEA being 250 per cent. greater than in outer-London boroughs? ILEA's whole record shows that it spends far more money than other education authorities in London.
Some Opposition Members will claim that ILEA's higher expenditure reflects in part inner-London weighting. I have examined the expenditure of the authorities that also pay inner-London weighting, such as Haringey, with which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was once associated, and Brent. ILEA's costs are 31 per cent. higher than Brent's, and no one has ever put Brent forward as an example of financial rectitude. ILEA's costs are also 22 per cent. higher than those in Haringey, whose high expenditure is only too well known.
The results are quite appalling. We are being told that ILEA results cannot be compared with those enjoyed by the London borough of Barnet. Of course, supporters of ILEA would not want that comparison, because our results in Barnet are so much better. But shall we compare the results of ILEA with those of areas that might be described as socially deprived, such as Sunderland, Wigan or St. Helen's? Why did only 16·2 per cent. of children leave ILEA schools with five or more O-levels, while in St. Helen's the figure is 22 per cent. and in Wigan it is 29·9 per cent.?
We were told by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has now left the Chamber, that Strathclyde, not ILEA, is the largest education authority in the country. What he could have told us was that Strathclyde produced even worse results than ILEA: 25 per cent. of pupils leave Strathclyde schools with no passes at all.
It is plain that the larger education authorities are not at all successful. In the 16 years in which I was a London borough councillor, I discovered that the borough council was responsive to the needs of the ratepayers and the consumers of its services, and county hall was not. The previous Conservative Government got rid of county hall, and I believe that by getting rid of ILEA the present Government are doing a great deal for education in inner London.
Let us look at ILEA's record with its headmasters. Many left because they became tired of its constant interference with their work. Between 1981 and 1985. 137 head teachers left the service of ILEA, preferring premature retirement to the constant interference of Ms.


Frances Morrell. When Lawrie Norcross, one of ILEA's most distinguished headmasters, chose early retirement, he did so simply because he was fed up with the constant interference by its bureaucrats and politicians. He wanted an authority that put results and standards first, but he was working for an authority that put questions of racism and sexism before the results of its children.
During the general election, we heard many Opposition Members talk about the plight of the inner cities. That plight is caused by bad education. If the children of inner London are to have the future that we all want for them, they must have the basis of a decent education. ILEA has failed them. It has failed all the people who live in inner London. We want it abolished so that the children of inner London may have a chance to succeed where they have failed historically.
Labour Members tell us that the inner-London boroughs are not suitable to be education authorities. I have heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) make the odd interjection from a sedentary position today, but I have never heard him say that Newham should not be an education authority. I have never heard any London Labour Member say that Barking or Dagenham — which have all the social problems of Tower Hamlets and Hackney—should not be education authorities. If it is right for Newham, if it is right for Barking, if it is—

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London borough of Newham wanted to opt into ILEA?

Mr. Marshall: That shows how misguided it can be. But we have not heard much from Labour spokesmen historically about how Barking or Newham should opt into ILEA.
We have seen other small London boroughs—such as Kingston, which is well known to my hon. Friend the Minister of State—provide a first-rate education service. I believe that the inner-London boroughs as a whole will do jolly well when they provide their own education service and get rid of the constant and unnecessary interference from county hall.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Rarely has a Bill been less well thought out, had less consultation and had more of an attempt by the Government to rush it to the statute book. As the Bill has gone through the House, Ministers have learnt much more about education. It is sad that they have been such slow learners. Their learning curve does not fit either the guillotined time or the extra time found by way of the motion.
Anyone who has followed the proceedings in Committee will have seen clear evidence that the Government have chopped and changed and have discovered only as the Bill has proceeded what they are actually proposing. It emerged in Committee just how long it would take for the national curriculum to be in place. It will take at least 10 years, and it will not be until 2010 that pupils will be following the national curriculum for the whole of their time through school.
As for testing, the Secretary of State admitted how much he had learnt about testing in the six months since the general election. The report of the task group on assessment and testing, which I think the Secretary of State

accepts, made it quite clear that it will not be possible to have Baker merit awards for seven-year-olds who do well, and it certainly will not be possible for the Boyson detention camps to be used in the summer holidays for those who do badly.
Financial devolution is laudable, but the Secretary of State has not really thought about the need to give staff a reassurance that, when financial devolution comes to schools, their conditions of service will be guaranteed. On the whole question of opted-out schools, the Minister was muddled and confused about whether schools would be able to have collections to pay for extra teachers. Even yesterday, when higher education was discussed in Committee, the Secretary of State seemed considerably confused when trying to reconcile his press handout and his careful weasel words about the concessions that he was making.
Over ILEA, the confusion has been massive. The thrust of the Government's cause is that ILEA is far too expensive. However, we had no information at all from the Government about how much money they will save as a result of the abolition of ILEA. The Secretary of State must tell us on what his financial considerations are based. How much money does he expect to save, and what will he do about the present cross-borough subsidisation? Until he can give some indication of the financial implications of the proposals, it is totally unreasonable to proceed with the legislation. A case built on the argument that the proposals will save money and in which no figures are provided is totally dishonest.
Neither the Secretary of State nor his colleagues have given any answers about what will happen over money transferred from the rich to the poor boroughs. He has not addressed himself to the chaos that will face schools in areas such as Hackney and Lambeth and in other parts of London.
Let us first consider the Education Act 1986. It will change governing bodies so that next autumn there will be new governing bodies. The staff in the schools will have to consider the implications of the national curriculum and of testing. They must start to grapple with the financial management of schools. There might even be a referendum in their schools about opting out.
Imposed on all those matters is the abolition of ILEA. The advisers that schools might turn to for guidance on the national curriculum, testing, financial management or opting out will all be uncertain about their future. For two years the Government will guarantee total upheaval in the schools, yet the whole thrust of the Bill is to improve standards in our schools. I cannot see one jot of evidence that over the next four years any of the promises to improve standards in inner-London schools can be kept. There will be administrative chaos, and parents, staff and pupils will be disillusioned.
The timetable gives no indication of how much time we will need for the Government's proposals on charges. They keep promising that the new clauses on charges will be given to the House, but so far we have not seen them. The Secretary of State says that the Opposition will be pleased with the clauses about charges. I shall be surprised if we are pleased. That is yet one further piece of evidence that the Government have not thought out this legislation before they brought it to the House.
The Government should address themselves to the problems in education, such as the need for youngsters to get off to a good start with good nursery education, which


is available to many children in ILEA but not in many other parts of the country. They should have addressed themselves to the problems facing 16 to 19-year-olds, for whom it is financially more attractive to leave school and go on to a YTS course than it is to stay at school to obtain good examination results and benefit from education. Those are the problems that should have been addressed by this legislation.
It is not adequate to offer the House two further days to debate ILEA, and two more days to sort out the mess and muddle in the Bill. It is not only time in the House that is required but time in the country. More important, it is a question of the Government having time to sort out their ideas so that they can come forward with credible proposals. At this stage, the Government should take the Bill away, delete large chunks of it and come back next year with a modest measure that would genuinely improve education standards and not produce chaos in ILEA in the short term and chaos in many of our schools for the next 10 years.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I would contest the suggestion that we do not give a generous allocation of time to Opposition Members. In addition to the other debates, we propose a further 16 hours of debate in Committee on the clauses relating to ILEA and a full day on the Floor of the House on Report. We have tabled our amendments in good time to allow full consideration of these matters.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked about ILEA's staff fighting to retain their jobs in the next two years. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend made it quite plain that over 80 per cent. of those employed by ILEA will be transferred by order to the employment of borough local education authorities. Many of the remainder will find posts with the new authorities. We are setting up a staff commission to help with this process. It is quite irresponsible of the Opposition to suggest otherwise. Sadly, that has been typical of their unwillingness to face facts.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) seems to be completely unaware of the way in which many pupils cross borough boundaries every day in outer London, as do many students attending further education colleges. Nothing will hamper that happening within inner London when the new education authorities are set up. There have been no difficulties in outer London. If anything, it gives greater choice to parents in outer-London boroughs, and I suspect it will have the same effect in inner London.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: As the Bill was first drafted, parents' rights on open enrolment would have applied to all the inner-London education area. Will those rights now simply be limited to the borough in which parents live?

Mrs. Rumbold: It will depend entirely on the locality of the school and whether the criteria that apply to those schools are different from those that exist at present. ILEA uses artificial boundaries and limits on its schools and bands children. That is something that few authorities do. Parents within ILEA will have better choice through open enrolment and there will be less discrimination against

parental wishes than at present. Further education colleges will continue to cater for students from all the other boroughs in the same way as further education colleges in outer London and other metropolitan areas. They operate on a system of recruitment from various different boroughs.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the expense of ILEA. He asked how the Government could expect a reduction in expense if ILEA is disbanded and education is run by borough authorities. I should explain that the Conservative boroughs of Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea all provide personal social services to their residents within the grant-related expenditure allocated to them by the Government. They also manage to reflect the extra needs of their inner-London areas. I see no reason why, when the boroughs acquire education as a service, they should not be able to provide efficient and effective education. The boroughs will certainly be much more responsible locally to the needs of the children and to the requirements of the parents. If properly managed, I suggest that the education service could be provided at considerably less expense than currently under the two-tier system operated by ILEA.
It is a very odd argument for Opposition Members to say that it is all right for boroughs in outer London to run education, and it matters not whether those boroughs are Conservative or Labour-controlled, but it would not be suitable for boroughs in inner London to run education. I fail to see the logic of that, in the same way as I fail to see the logic expressed by Liberal and alliance Members who seem to think that people in Richmond are competent to run education but people in Tower Hamlets are not, in spite of the fact that both boroughs are Liberal-controlled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) was right to point out that a campaign is likely to be mounted against the Government's plans for the disbandment of ILEA and the return of education to the boroughs. Such a campaign would affect all the people who live within inner London. I greatly doubt whether, at the end of the day, it will be much more effective than the millions of pounds which were squandered on the scurrilous campaign run by the Greater London council—

Mr. Tony Banks: I can assure the hon. Lady that, while the campaign will be strident, it will be mounted by the parents of inner London because no parents in inner London support the Government's proposals. Of course, the hon. Lady will ignore them.

Mrs. Rumbold: It will be interesting to see what happens. If ILEA spends money on a campaign to whip up support from the parents, those who will be deprived of the benefits of that money will be the children who are being educated in the Inner London education authority area.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: While the Minister is on the subject, perhaps she will tell us exactly how much money is being spent by the Department of Education and Science on promoting the nonsense proposals to break up ILEA under the guise of so-called information. She is so good at criticising local authorities which are spending money on providing information within the terms of the Local Government Act 1985 that I think Parliament deserves to know—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [1 February].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of 1st February be varied by substituting, for paragraphs 1 and 2(1), the following:—

'Committee
1. — (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 8th March 1988.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 8th March may continue until Ten p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 9th March.

Report and Third Reading
2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.'

Education Reform Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying the expenses of the staff commission established by the Act.
The reason for the supplementary money resolution is simple. The new clauses which we have tabled in relation to part III of the Education Reform Bill make provision for the establishment of a staff commission to help with matters arising from the transfer of staff from ILEA to the inner London boroughs. As was the case with the staff commission established at the time of the abolition of the GLC, this body will be centrally funded.
The costs will not be large; the previous staff commission had a maximum of seven members of staff, and we would expect the new one to have no more, and possibly fewer. It is our intention that it should be set up in good time to offer guidance throughout the process of transfer. In this respect we want to draw on the lessons learnt at the time of the abolition of the GLC.
I hope that the Labour boroughs will also remember those lessons. If they adopt an ostrich-like attitude and refuse to recognise that this transfer will take place, they will be damaging their own interests, and those of the staff, parents and children concerned. I urge them to join the Government in early discussions about the transfer process, so that we can work together to make as effective a new start as possible for London's education service.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to ask the Minister a number of questions about the setting up of the staff commission. I have had a sense of déjà vu throughout this evening, because we had debates such as this when the Greater London council was being abolished. We asked the Government a whole series of questions about how much it would cost the ratepayers of London, how much they estimated would be saved and how many staff would lose their jobs. The Government could not tell us the exact figures at any stage.
Frankly, given the Minister's rambling wind-up speech earlier, I doubt very much whether she knows the answers; she seemed scarcely capable of reading what had been put in front of her. If I may say so, in a rather inelegant phrase, she stuck rigidly to her briefs. The fact is that she seemed to have no great knowledge of what was contained in those briefs. Can she tell us who will head the staff commission? Who will be its members? For how long will the staff commission remain in existence? How many people will work for the staff commission? Where is the staff commission to be based? Perhaps it will be based in county hall.
The Government have no clear idea of the likely economic impacts of the policy that they have enunciated on the hoof tonight. The Government clearly have no idea of the likely costs of the abolition of the Inner London education authority. They have no idea of the composition or costs of the staff commission. That comes as no great surprise to Opposition Members, because the Government had no idea in relation to the abolition of the GLC either.
This proposal, coming at the end of a series of debates on the abolition of ILEA, has nothing whatever to do with the education needs of the children of inner London or of those who attend colleges in inner London. It has nothing to do with the pay and conditions and welfare of the excellent staff who work for ILEA, many of whom can expect to receive their marching orders under this policy. How many redundancies do the Government expect to arise from the abolition of ILEA? The staff commission will be charged with the responsibility to ensure that those who find themselves declared redundant are given reasonably favourable severance terms.
We asked similar questions in respect of the abolition of the GLC. We never received a satisfactory explanation. Indeed, Opposition Members could never have been satisfied because we found the abolition of the GLC totally unacceptable in political terms, just as we find the abolition of ILEA unacceptable. We knew that the abolition of the GLC and the setting up of the staff commission had nothing to do with the efficient running of local government in London and we know that the setting up of this staff commission has nothing to do with the efficient running of inner London's education services.
I realise that it has been a long evening for Conservative Members and that a large number are being forced to stay here in case the Opposition require a vote to be held later tonight. I shall not put them out of their misery. They will have to sit here and take one and a half hours—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Three quarters of an hour.

Mr. Banks: —three quarters of an hour to debate the setting up of the staff commission. I shall not talk it out. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has been sitting here with me throughout most of the evening, waiting to speak in the general debate on the principle of the abolition of the inner London education authority. Unfortunately, we missed the Campaign group meeting to hear this debate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: That is the level of sacrifice.

Mr. Banks: It was not worth that level of sacrifice, because the Conservative arguments were so appalling. It was clear that, even among all the Conservative Members, they could scarcely get a clutch of GCE O-levels between them. If they had gone to ILEA schools, like me, they would have been highly academically qualified. Thanks to ILEA, I have a clutch of qualifications and degrees for which I am most grateful.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Honorary ones? Did the hon. Gentleman buy them?

Mr. Banks: Not at all. I did not buy my academic qualifications in Private Eye. I did not have to descend to that level of misrepresentation, as Conservative Members so often must. I got my education at ILEA schools. I am proud of that fact. If I had any children, they would also go to ILEA schools. Unfortunately, I have to spend so much time in the House that I have very little opportunity to propagate within my family. I intend to remedy that anon.
The Inner London education authority has been in existence for some 117 years. It is being abolished and a staff commission is being set up, according to this measure, to satisfy the internal politicking in the Conservative party.
Neither the setting up of the staff commission nor the abolition of ILEA has anything to do with the interests of education in inner London.
The Secretary of State, who helped to preside over the abolition of the Greater London council, was hijacked by the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). There was a point when he had no intention of abolishing ILEA. As my hon. Friends have said, that was not included in the terms of the 1987 Conservative manifesto. The Secretary of State knows that to be a fact. He was hijacked because he is playing for big stakes within his terms — for the leadership of the Conservative party. I am sure that the staff commission plays a minor part in his campaign for the position as the next fuhrer of the Conservative party.
The right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to listen carefully to what was said by the right hon. Member for Henley, who knows nothing about education requirements in inner London. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman sent his children to an ILEA school. He knows nothing about ILEA requirements, for the simple reason that he does not represent an ILEA seat. Many of the Conservative Members who contributed to the debate do not represent ILEA constituencies—

Mr. John Marshall: Neither does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman does not represent an ILEA constituency. He is saying to me that I, too, do not represent an ILEA constituency. Of course I understood that. I did not need the hon. Gentleman to convey that information to me.
I must declare my interest. I was an elected member of ILEA from 1970, so I have some passing knowledge of its activities. I have already told Conservative Members of my experiences as a beneficiary of the excellent education provided by the Inner London education authority. Of course, I am also chairman of the London group of Labour Members, which is why I am speaking on this resolution about the setting up of the staff commission. So, although I do not represent an inner-London constituency, I am wholly qualified to speak on the subject.
I said earlier, during the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) that the outer-London borough of Newham, an education authority in its own right, wanted to opt into ILEA—something it will no longer be able to do when ILEA is abolished. Newham recognised just how good ILEA's educational provision was. Newham, the second most deprived local authority area in the whole of England, wanted to benefit from being able to tap into the enormous resources that ILEA could generate. That is why it is a scandal that the staff commission is being set up to preside over the dismantling of ILEA—

Mr. Skinner: It is a quango.

Mr. Banks: It is undoubtedly a quango, just like the London residuary body. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us who will chair, and who will be the members of, the staff commission. What will its budget be? How long does he expect it to last? He must have some sort of time span in mind. I asked him earlier how long the London residuary body should exist. Its powers will now be extended to take account of the break-up of ILEA.
Conservative Members know that there is no mandate for setting up the staff commission, or for the break-up of


ILEA. The Government held a consultation exercise about what they called the reform of education and opting out of ILEA. They did not include the setting up of the staff commission in that consultation exercise. I understand that. They probably had not even thought about the need to set up a staff-commission, because so much of this idea is being spatchcocked together as the Government work out what to do on the hoof.
As I have said time and again, this proposal has nothing to do with the education needs of the children of inner London. There was a consultation exercise over opting out. The Government have never seen fit to publish its results, for the simple reason that the great majority of those who were consulted and who submitted their views said that they were not in favour of the Government's proposals. If the Government were prepared to consult over the setting up of the staff commission, they would receive precisely the same response. There is no support for the Government's proposals to disband the Inner London education authority. There is no support for it in the schools, the divisions within ILEA or the boroughs. If the Government could quote a measure of support for their proposals to set up the staff commission or to abolish ILEA, they would be on their feet doing so.
The Secretary of State knows that there is no support anywhere in London, apart from within the rabid ranks of the Conservative party and in a few Conservative boroughs, for the abolition of ILEA. The setting up of the staff commission, and the abolition of ILEA have nothing to do with the interests of educational needs of children in inner London, and everything to do with the boxing and coxing going on in the Conservative party to see who will take over from Mama Doc at No. 10 when she eventually decides to stand down. In the abolition of ILEA and the setting up of the staff commission, we are seeing cobbled together a mish-mash of joint boards, shabby compromises and Whitehall control over local services which no one outside the ranks of today's neo-Fascist Tory party wanted to change in the first instance.
If the Secretary of State thinks that I am wrong, why does he not have a referendum in inner London on the setting up of the staff commission and the abolition of ILEA? If he were to do that, and the vote went against us because there was a majority in support of the Government's proposals, we would—I say this without reference to my estimable colleagues — drop our opposition to the Government's legislative proposals immediately. The Government will not have that referendum because they know that they will never get the support that they claim they have.
Why do not the Government say that there will be one last election in ILEA on the single issue of dismantling the authority? We should stand for its retention, and the Tories could stand for abolition. Will the Government then say that they will abide by the decision of the people of inner London, exercised through the ballot box? If they could say that tonight, we could save ourselves a lot of discussion about the various ramifications attendant on abolition, including the setting up of the staff commission.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that, during the debates on the abolition of the GLC, four Labour members of the GLC resigned their seats so that there were

by-elections to test public opinion on this matter, and the Tories refused to join in that contest because they were scared, and knew what the result would be?

Madam Deputy Chairman (Mrs. Betty Boothroyd): Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a restricted debate which concerns only a money resolution that deals with the setting up of a staff commission, and arises out of new clause 64.

Mr. Banks: I have kept myself within the bounds of the debate. I have continually referred to the staff commission and the money resolution, and I will continue to do so.
I find it difficult, even after the years that I have been here—it seems like a lifetime, but it is only five years—to accept the level of cynicism that exists among Tory Members. I still find myself being genuinely outraged by what comes from them. I wish I had the cynicism of the Secretary of State, which is such that he can stand on his head at regular intervals, and deny his principles.

Mr. Corbyn: His hair does not get ruffled.

Mr. Banks: That is because he puts half a pint of Brylcreem on it. I cannot do what the Secretary of State does, because I still have certain principles. One of those is that one does not dismantle a democratically elected body and set up a quango such as the staff commission in the face of opposition from those who will find themselves most affected by the Tory proposals. The exercise before us has been dressed up in language of democracy, to camouflage a deeply cynical and politically motivated act of educational vandalism, which the Secretary of State is perpetrating on the people of inner London.
The Secretary of State is to answer this debate on the staff commission. He touts his political principles around like a tray of cheap jewellery. He was denounced by the previous leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in a debate in December 1984. The Secretary of State has not one principle that he is not prepared to sell for political advantage. That is how cheap and tawdry he is. He found himself being outflanked by two political shysters—two flash Johnnies in political terms who out-tried themselves. We do not know which one tried to manoeuvre for the leadership of the party.
The Secretary of State saw that coming and decided that it would be best to cut and run, and to abolish ILEA. There is nothing in the establishment of the staff commission and—

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) as a political shyster?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not something that the Chair would request the hon. Member to withdraw, but it is certainly not the sort of parliamentary language that I would welcome or wish to hear.

Mr. Banks: I thought that I was being fairly complimentary to the right hon. Member for Chingford. That was the nicest thing that I could think to say about him. I could say much more to his face and I should like to say them across the Chamber, but if I did, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would require me to withdraw them, and I would not wish to risk your anger this evening.
Cheap, tawdry and unprincipled is a fairly good description of the Secretary of State and the abolition of ILEA.

Mr. Soames: rose—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Soames? [Laughter.] Mr. Corbyn.

Mr. Corbyn: We should all thank the Crawley food mountain for his speech. It is one of the best that he has ever made. If he stopped eating salmon, he might be able to grow a beard.
While introducing the guillotine motion, the Secretary of State described this Bill and the staff commission in the same way that one could imagine a hangman addressing a group of condemned prisoners about the efficiency of the rope and how it would not hurt when they had been hanged.
I have sat through this debate, the previous motion and many discussions about ILEA because I have a special interest in it. For several years I was a full-time official of NUPE, which has many members working for ILEA, and I have been involved in several campaigns to save ILEA from break-up and destruction. I should inform the Secretary of State that every one of those campaigns has been successful; the Government have not succeeded in destroying ILEA yet. The Secretary of State may smirk, but if he casts his mind back to the bellicose statements by many of his predecessors, he will remember that they have always lost because of opposition from parents, workers in the authority and teachers, and because of professional support for those campaigns.
It is significant that, although we are debating the staff commission proposal, the resolution gives no indication whatever of how much money will be involved in financing the staff commission, how many staff will be involved, how much property will be sold to pay for redundancy payments, and what the future holds for many of the 40,000 staff employed by ILEA. It is a disgrace of the highest order that the Government should force this nasty little amendment, which will curtail the livelihoods and jobs of so many ILEA staff, to a Bill which is halfway through all its stages.
There have been no consultations with the staff. The first that they heard about the proposal to break up ILEA was the early-day motion tabled by the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Other hon. Friends have already said that that early-day motion has more to do with the leadership of the Conservative party than any possible concern that those two right hon. Gentlemen may have about ILEA.
I wonder how the right hon. Member for Henley would react if we introduced a private Member's Bill to destroy the education authority in Oxfordshire and pass it over to some local quango or district council. It is a gross impertinence and interference in the democratically elected authority of ILEA for such people to promote its abolition. It is a demonstration of the Government's weakness and the Secretary of State's weakness that one puff of wind from that pair of shysters and he is on his way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The English language is a rich one and I believe that there is better vocabulary

that we can use. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I would appreciate hearing about the money resolution, new clause 64, the staff commission and how it will function.

Mr. Corbyn: The English language is indeed rich and I could make it richer if you wish, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I intend to continue to discuss the staff commission because I have a particular interest in, and experience of, the way in which the GLC was broken up, the way in which the housing transfers took place under similar staff commission proposals some years before and the years that it took to sort out those difficulties, in spite of good will on both sides.
We should give some thought to what will happen to the staff of ILEA if it is abolished. If ILEA is broken up in the way envisaged, power will pass to the local education authorities based in each borough, and problems will be caused for the ILEA staff. Figures have been quoted by other hon. Members, but I will refer to them again briefly because they help to amplify my argument.
The borough of Islington, through its ratepayers, contributes £44·3 million per annum to ILEA and receives, in return, £72·8 million. Therefore, there is an expenditure gap of £28 million. Whatever honeyed words the Secretary of State used earlier to gloss over the problems, he failed to mention two things. First, under local government legislation, the Government have virtually complete power over the level of spending in each borough council, because they can impose the rate cap at any time they like. They can also decide what level the business rate will be across London and, in effect, decide how much money will be available for inner London.
The Government have said that they will take account of the socio-economic factors when deciding the level of expenditure for each authority and the number of staff that it employs. However, if the Government use the same criteria as those used in deciding the social fund allocations, I fear for each authority. My constituency faces 40 per cent. cut in social fund expenditure, but Bognor Regis — an area of undoubted deprivation, poverty and appalling conditions—has had an increase in expenditure. Are we to trust the Government to decide how much should be spent in inner London if they cannot decide, reasonably, the levels of expenditure under the social fund? The more one considers the funding of the education authorities, the more horrifying it becomes.
School caretakers in my constituency, having seen the figures, have come to me because they know that their jobs will be on the line. They work hard and well to ensure that the schools are open, sometimes seven days a week as youth centres, and often in the evenings for adult education and other activities. School cleaners may be a matter of trivial importance to Conservative Members. It is clear from the way that they have treated them and tried to privatise their jobs that they have nothing but contempt for cleaners. However, I believe that one cannot have a school without cleaners, school meal workers or caretakers, any more than one can have a school without teachers. They are all an essential part of an educational community. All those people will suffer, and all those jobs will be at risk.
When discussing the staff commission, the Minister of State deliberately failed to go into the problems of the non-statutory sector of education in ILEA. The Secretary of


State will know that ILEA provides a good standard of statutory education. The HMI report that he suppressed demonstrates how good pre-school education and primary and some secondary schools are. It is particularly complimentary about further education and the non-statutory further education sector.
What am Ito say to part-time lecturers employed at the "City Lit" or full-time lecturers employed at Morley college or Birkbeck college and all the other places that will suffer because of the destruction of the education system of inner London?
Education should be a process for life, not just for the statutory school ages or in statutory further education establishments. I am certain that, if the proposal is passed, we shall suffer the most appalling damage in the further education sector, which gives adults who have missed out on their own further education the opportunity to study and develop new skills to enrich their lives — in some cases not even because they want to exploit those skills commercially. It might seem amazing to Conservative Members, but some people believe in learning for the sake of learning and enriching their lives rather than exploiting somebody else and making money while they are about it. That is the difference in attitude between the Opposition and the Government.
What are we to say to the pensioners who use the "City Lit" or Camden college—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have reminded the hon. Member once that we are discussing a restricted motion. I bring him back to the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Corbyn: Indeed. I am anxious to keep to the subject of the motion, which is the staff commission, and the future of the staff. However, the proposal is so vague that one has no idea how many staff are affected, what jobs will be affected, and what the future is for lecturers at the further education institutes or any other ILEA institution. We have no idea about the future of nursery workers, nursery teachers, nursery nurses and head teachers in nursery establishments. Once again, we are considering the non-statutory provision of education. ILEA has been complimented on its pre-school provision. Is all that to suffer on the altar of the ambition of three right hon. Members to be the leader of the Tory party? That is what it is all about.
As I mentioned, there has been no consultation whatever with the staff, be they teaching or non-teaching staff. The parents' organisations have linked with the staff on the matter because they are deeply suspicious and angry. I have had nothing but letters condemning the break-up of ILEA. I have had nothing but letters from parents expressing their concern and support for the staff in their campaign to prevent ILEA being broken up.
When the parents' poll takes place, as I hope it will, I am certain that it will show an overwhelming rejection of the Government's proposals. The Secretary of State, with the contempt that he holds for the people of inner London for having the temerity to elect a Labour authority, will no doubt seek to ignore that and use his tame sheep on the Benches behind him to take the proposals through the Division Lobby.
The staff commission proposal has effects on particular areas of ILEA. I have mentioned pre-school and further

education. I shall now mention the effects on the statutory sector itself. There are problems of staffing. ILEA has had a long dispute with the teaching unions, which I believe is now resolved, about the transfer of staff between divisions and schools to compensate for the movement of children from one school to another.
Another problem will now arise immediately. If the new education authorities are set up on the basis of the boundary of one borough or the other, there will be a problem. Secondary school children in my constituency do not all attend secondary schools in my constituency. For example, they go to Acland Burghley school, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). It will be in a different borough, under a different education authority.
What will be the transfer arrangements for staff? What will happen to schools that are deemed to be overstaffed or understaffed? How will staff transfer not within one employer but between two employers? That is the consequence of the staff commission proposals.
I believe also that education is not just a matter of the teaching that is done in the classroom or in the lecture theatre. It is also the quality of life that the student or child can have within the school. That means things like the quality of the cleaning that is done in the establishment, the quality of the upkeep of the building, the quality of the environment in which the school is sited, the quality of the decorations of the school, and, indeed, the quality of the food that the children eat during the school lunch break.
The ILEA has a good school meals service, with a large number of dedicated staff, all of whom have suffered badly because of the removal of the basic nutritional standards in 1980—which, I am glad to say, ILEA resisted. The staff are now to suffer also because of the break-up of the authority and the implicit threat of privatisation of the school meals service. Indeed, over half the children in my constituency receive free school meals. As a result of the Social Security Bill that is going through the House at the moment, many children will suffer, and, implicitly, staff will also suffer. How will the staff commission deal with that problem?
Once again, by the break-up of the authority into at least 12 different authorities, the possibilities of transfer from one school to another, and the possibilities of career advancement from one grade to another, will be reduced. We must examine other aspects of school life, such as school cleaning staff. Exactly the same problems arise for them. At the moment, they work for one authority. They have fixed terms and conditions that are negotiated between their union and their employer.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend has referred to a most interesting aspect of the staff commission. With regard to the abolition of the Greater London council and the setting up of the staff commission, it was claimed that there would be a great saving of jobs—in our terms, of course, that means much higher unemployment — but the figures were never actually produced by the Government.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend would care to comment on the fact that, if jobs are to be lost, they will be lost at the level of the most basic but most essential tasks within Inner London education authority schools. I refer to the cleaners, the dinner ladies, and those who provide the ancillary services. Those at the administrative level of the authority will find that ample opportunities


will suddenly produce extra opportunities for advancement and enhanced salary projection. —[Interruption.] I am sorry, I did not realise that I was boring the House.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. I realise that Conservative Members are being kept from a restaurant, a bar or somewhere. They can either leave or listen. It is entirely up to them.
I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks, although I urge caution. I should not want to be party to dividing teaching staff from non-teaching staff, or administrative staff from manual workers. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to do that, either. He made a valid point. If Conservative Members think that these are minor matters of no importance, I urge them to examine authorities such as Barnet and others that have cut school meals and cleaning staff.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am not trying to drive wedges between different groups of staff; I was merely trying to point out that, whenever there is a reorganisation of local government, there is an increase in the number of administrators. It is always interesting that those who are required to dismantle the service find that the first impact is an increase in jobs for those with the task of running the service down. It is not a question of driving wedges, but of pointing out that what the Government are trying to achieve will be counterproductive.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Every reorganisation with which I have been involved, either of local government or of health, always results in greater administrative costs— usually a loss of manual jobs on the grounds of efficiency, and an overall increase in the cost of running the service. Ministers know that that has been the result every time that the Health Service has been reorganised. They know that that has been the result of local government amalgamation, and they know that it will be the result on this occasion. If the Ministers came clean about the real cost of the break-up of the GLC and of the staff commission that was established following its break-up and which has now apparently been given a permanent life, and included the inflated salaries of Sir Godfrey Taylor and a number of other people who are there to destroy jobs in London, we would get a bit nearer to the truth — which, of course, they do not want to come out with.

Mr. Banks: The Government do not have the foggiest idea of the savings that they claim will come from the abolition of the Inner London education authority, just as happened with the abolition of the Greater London council and the setting up of the staff commission there. It will cost the ratepayers of London more for the abolition of the Inner London education authority than for its continuation, just as happened with the abolition of the Greater London council.

Mr. Corbyn: There is a lot of evidence that abolishing ILEA will cost more than keeping it going, but the Government will not admit that tonight. The Government have never bothered to look into the way in which ILEA is run, what it actually does or the problems it faces. Contemptibly, over the past three years, nine months of detailed consultation and negotiation within ILEA have been vetoed in a 90-minute debate in this place as the Government put through the rate precept order for ILEA as they do for transport authorities and everything else — turning this place into a sort of glorified county council chamber. We are witnessing the disgraceful process of the destruction of local government.
The provisions for the staff commission are so vaguely worded and general that we do not know how it will fit into the wage and salary negotiating structure and what its relationship will be with the small number of people who come under the Whitley council, the Burnham committee, the Greater London Joint Council for Manual Workers and those affected by the craftsmen's conditions. What will its relationship be with those negotiating bodies? What guarantees will be given to staff who transfer across the local authorities? Indeed, if they were asked to—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPurY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying the expenses of the staff commission established by the Act.

Rate Support Grant (England)

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 253), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
I would ask the House to take at the same time the other motion:
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 254), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the Minister said, "No. 2," but it is No. 3.

Mr. Howard: No, I think that I said, "No. 3." If I did not, I certainly should have done, but I think that I did.
As the House will be aware, I had hoped to move the approval of a report for 1983–84 also. It has emerged, however, that a number of the figures shown in the formula for calculating grant-related expenditure assessments in that report were incorrect. Although the GREs for individual authorities were shown correctly, and hence the grant entitlements were correct, we decided that we should withdraw the report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made a new report which will be laid before the House as soon as it is printed, I hope by the end of the week.
The last time that I came before the House to seek its approval for a supplementary report was in July. I forecast then that there would be more to come, and this evening my prediction comes true with the supplementary reports now before us.
The two reports before us differ from the one that we discussed in July. Whereas that supplementary report and the one preceding it, which was approved shortly before the general election, were additional to the normal cycle of reports in that they were concerned with the extra grant that we provided for teachers' pay, these supplementary reports, and the one to follow later, are all part of the normal cycle of adjustment as further information is received on local authorities' expenditure.
The 1984–85 report reflects audited returns of expenditure in those years. The 1986–87 report deals in the main with provisional outturn returns sent direct to the Department by chief finance officers. It follows that, whereas there is at least one further supplementary report to make for 1986–87, the earlier report should be the last for 1984–85 and I am sure that the House will be grateful at least for that.
Not only do the reports take account of the latest expenditure information, they also bring up to date our calculations of authorities' grant-related expenditure assessments or GREs. As the House will appreciate, some components of GREs are based on actual expenditure. Precepts paid to water authorities for land drainage are one example, and mandatory grants paid to students are another. The reports reflect the latest expenditure figures in these components. Other components of GREs are revised to reflect, for example in 1984–85, the latest estimates of average interest rates paid by local authorities and the final cost of the police pay awards.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that the system now known as grant recycling applied to the years that we are considering. That means that the parameters of the block grant system are adjusted in each report to distribute the whole of a fixed total of block grant and I will say a word or two about grant abatement in a moment. Cognoscenti of the block grant system will know that, as new expenditure figures come in, changing the amount of block grant being claimed, the amount that authorities are assumed to collect from their ratepayers — the national grant-related poundage — is lowered or raised to ensure that the aggregate of grant payable does match the total available. The supplementary reports before the House tonight carry out this complex process by specifying new national grant-related poundages at GRE and the related amounts for each tier of authority.
In 1984–85 the Government issued expenditure guidance to local authorities. The then Secretary of State specified in the main report for that year a scheme for abating the block grant of authorities which exceeded their targets. Grant abated in this fashion was not recycled to other authorities: it was retained by the Treasury.
In 1984–85 the amount abated is now £15 million less than in the third supplementary report, but it is still the case that, taking 1983–84 and 1984–85 together, of the £17,350 million block grant made available by the Exchequer, £542 million, over half a billion pounds, was lost to local government because of overspending.
No expenditure guidance was issued for 1986–87. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, abolished the system for expenditure guidance and grant abatement in that year. To maintain the downward pressure on spending, he sharply increased the amounts that authorities were assumed to raise from their ratepayers as their expenditure increased. That caused most authorities in England to lose block grant if their expenditure increased. Conversely, they could increase their grant if they were able to reduce their expenditure. Any grant that was lost by authorities which increased their spending above the levels assumed in the settlement was not returned to the Treasury. It was returned, or recycled, to all other authorities by adjusting the national grant-related poundage at GRE.
I hope that I have now given the House a reasonably brief account of what these supplementary reports do. I turn now to several particular features of them which the House will wish to consider—first, the so-called deficit financing of special funds. The House will know that one of the principal characteristics of the present system is that block grant depends upon expenditure—in fact, on what is known as total expenditure, which is calculated according to certain statutory rules.
Over the whole life of the present system, many authorities have legitimately presented their total expenditure in such a way as to maximise their grant entitlement. One way of doing this has involved the use of special funds. In anticipation of a harsher block grant regime in a future year, authorities have paid sums into special funds. Such transactions increased total expenditure for block grant purposes, and some block grant was lost. They then withdrew the sums in a later year, so reducing their total expenditure for grant purposes. This increased their grant in the following year by a larger amount, thus benefiting the authority overall.
This use of special funds is not illegal; nor is it necessarily in conflict with good accounting practices. It can been seen as authorities legitimately using the rules for total expenditure to their best advantage. However, during 1986 the Department became aware that some authorities had taken the practice a stage further, causing us considerable concern. They were showing in their books transfers to special funds of moneys that they did not possess: the transfers were causing deficits on the rate fund account. In theory, there was no limit to the amount of such transfers. The practice was clearly an attempt by a few authorities to manipulate their total expenditure figures, and gain an unfair grant advantage at the expense of other authorities and of the Exchequer.
Those circumstances, together with consideration of another anomaly in an authority's expenditure return, led us to conclude that we needed the provisions that have been enacted in the Local Government Finance Act 1987. These provisions, together with the specifications that we have made under the Act, have put the traditional practice for calculating total expenditure on a firm statutory basis, and have made it clear that deficit financing and other anomalies cannot be included in total expenditure. It was those measures that delayed the 1983–84 supplementary report.
In making the reports before the House tonight, we have made use of new specifications under the 1987 Act, which re-established the definitions of total and relevant expenditure and rendered ineffective the practice of deficit financing of special funds, at least in regard to the block grant system.
Secondly, there is a minor matter concerning 1984–85. One authority, Gateshead, has drawn our attention to a change in the amount of unoccupied property in its borough. Although we did not appreciate it when the report was made, it has since been made clear that it ought to be taken into account when its grant is calculated once the report has been approved by Parliament. We shall therefore do so. But, so that the total of grant to be paid out matches the amount specified in the report, we shall use the power in section 62 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 to reduce all authorities' grants very slightly—by £2 in every £100,000.
The 1986–87 report honours the undertaking made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science that we would increase provision for expenditure by local education authorities on books and equipment for GCSE courses. In fact, the report increases education GREs by £4·2 million for that purpose.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that our right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment made the commitment that Norfolk — which is a prudent, low-spending authority—would have a fair deal in the years ahead?
In the last financial year, it had a very fair deal. Is my hon. and learned Friend aware, however, that the GREA for Norfolk — which, I gather, is the amount that the Government states that it is reasonable to spend to match the services that should be provided—is £312 million for 1988–89? The assumed spending level is £285 million. The budget that Norfolk has had to set is £299 million, which is a reasonable increase if, for instance, inflation and wages rises are taken into account. But Norfolk will lose £5.7 million as a result of the Government's policy.
Does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that it is very unfair to treat Norfolk as a high-spending authority when it is, in fact, a prudent low-spender—indeed, the third lowest-spending shire authority in the country? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Howard: The grant loss to which my hon. Friend refers relates to the rate support grant settlement for 1988–89. In fact, under the two supplementary reports that are before the House tonight, and the third one that is being remade, Norfolk will gain £3 million. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that those two reports can mean nothing but good news for Norfolk.
Finally, I should mention the "Bromley error". My right hon. and hon. Friends representing affected areas will know that it remains uncorrected in the supplementary report before the House tonight. We have consistently made it clear that we will correct the error, despite the attempt by the London borough of Greenwich, which gained from it, to prevent us from doing so. However, that cannot be done until my right hon. Friend has wider powers to change multipliers in supplementary reports. Those powers will be available when the Local Government Finance Bill reaches the statute book. He will then bring forward a further supplementary report for 1986–87, and for the other years affected by the error, to honour our promise.
In asking the House to approve the supplementary reports, I am particularly conscious of the shortcomings of the present rate support grant system. The supplementary reports alter local authorities' grants for financial years which will have long been closed. The 1986–87 supplementary report causes significant movements of grants away from many authorities in England because of spending decisions in other authorities over which they had no control and which they had no means of predicting.
The reports contain language of daunting complexity and legalistic and other arcane jargon. I can well appreciate that they are of limited help in understanding why in some local authorities grant entitlement may have changed. These are some of the reasons why we are scrapping the present system and replacing it with a fairer and simpler one. I commend these supplementary reports to the House.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I thank the Minister for his detailed and concise explanation of the reports. I freely admit that I am not and do not want to become a cognoscente of the block grant system. However, I can assure the aficionados of parliamentary procedure that the Opposition have studied the reports in some detail, realised that they are unamendable, and checked the arithmetic, which looks satisfactory. We did not know about the Norwich problem and, what is more, we did not know about the Gateshead problem. We were unaware of the number of empty properties in Gateshead that have been drawn to the Minister's attention. This kind of procedure would be a big switch-off for television, so I am not surprised that it is put on late at night.
I do not share the Minister's view that all will be rosy under the new system. However, as we are to debate the new system proposals in Committee, I have no doubt that we shall have a few hours between now and Easter to compare the new system with the present system. The


orders come before the House under the affirmative procedure, and the Minister will know that I am the last one to knock that. It is a good procedure and, when it is needed, it is vital that the scrutiny by the House of delegated legislation and ministerial decisions is fully carried out. On the other hand, there are occasions when the time at our disposal does not need to conform to Parkinson's law. Therefore, I propose to say no more.

Mr. Richard Holt: I took the opportunity to speak in a similar debate about three years ago. On that occasion I used the gobbledegook in the book to try to explain the difficulties that lay people have in understanding what the Minister admits is complex. No one knows the reasons that determine rate support grant in certain areas.
I want to bring to the attention of the House a simple matter that I can understand. Therefore, I am sure that the Minister can understand it. Last year, a deputation from Langbaurgh came to see the Minister's predecessor. We were promised that certain aspects of the rate support grant would be borne in mind when setting the rate for the following year. It did not happen, so we sent a deputation again this year. We were told, "Do not worry, we have taken the points on board again and we will look at it for next year." On current form, I imagine that Langbaurgh will send a deputation at about the same time next year when we have probably had another ministerial change and another set of promises that will not be kept.
Why is Langbaurgh persistent and consistent in this matter? It is because we believe that we are being cheated out of a certain element of GRE by the force of nature. In my constituency there are very large tracts of uninhabited, derelict, useless land. When the complex formula to

GRP = GRP at GRE+ 0.6p x threshold amount +0·75p x (total expenditure-GRE/ population -threshold amount)" —

that is not surprising. That is the sort of fog behind which everyone hides.

Mr. Rooker: It is a formula.

Mr. Holt: I accept that it is a formula.
I challenge my hon. and learned Friend to answer the question that I put to his predecessor when I spoke in a similar debate three years ago: who starts with the lump sum? Is it the Treasury? Are these formulae worked out by someone playing with computers who finds, lo and behold, that every one of those X — Y over 3 — Z calculations happens to come out exactly at the Treasury figure? Or is the Treasury figure worked backwards to find the formulae to fit it? I suspect that it is the latter, but I have no confirmation one way or the other.
I wonder what would happen if somebody found that these figures and formulae did not work out to what the Treasury had said and that there was a little bit over or under? Presumably, the computing system would have to be rewritten. We do not want that in Langbaurgh. We are simple people. We want what is right and fair; we want a recalculation of the GRE to take account of land on which not even the pigeons will sit.

determine GRE is worked out, this area of land is calculated on the density available in the Langbaurgh region. It is simply not usable land. To suggest that it is on all fours with usable land in other areas is totally wrong.
To his credit, the Minister admitted to the Langbaurgh delegation that he was befuddled by this, but nothing could be done about it. If Ministers cannot do anything about it, who else can? If they leave civil servants to run everything and to write the speeches that they read so fast one cannot follow them, why do delegations bother to come down? What promise is being held out to those worthy people in local government who give up their time and energy to represent people and who travel 300 miles to meet a Minister, only to be given promises, which are then reneged upon, and are given further promises for the forthcoming year, which will also be reneged upon?
Cleveland county council's rate this year is 282p, which is the highest shire county rate. If one adds the district rates for Langbaurgh, which are worse in the half of my constituency near to Middlesbrough, and the parish rates, one need not wonder why people find it so difficult to set up business enterprises in the area. The Government could
I was interested to hear my hon. and learned Friend say that this is an adjustment order. If the Government can make an adjustment order because of the cock-ups that they have found, why cannot they make an adjustment order to put right the anomalies that have been brought to their attention by the local authority? If they were to do so, we would not have such swingeing rate increases. The local authority is not a whingeing authority. It is a hung authority in which all three parties must play their part to make the borough work at all.
There are acres of land in the area that should not be taken into account in the GRE calculation. Hardly anyone understands the calculations involved. But when one sees the gobbledegook involved—

Mr. Peter Pike: This is one of those very rare occasions when I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). One of the problems with the present system is the formula and the way in which it has been compiled. In regard to the Minister's final remarks, I do not want to debate the new system that he believes will solve the problems of local government finance. I am totally opposed to the poll tax. We have heard many times over the past eight years that the Government have got the system right, but I do not have the same confidence as the Minister that they have got the solution this time.
I have always accepted that, whatever party is in power, the Government have the right to determine the amount of money which they are prepared to contribute as their share of local government expenditure. Local government has a right to argue that the amount is insufficient. Certainly Opposition Members may argue that the Government should give more to local authorities. When the Government have determined the figure I do not accept that they should prevent local authorities from


spending additional amounts if the ratepayers are prepared to provide the money. The Government should not penalise ratepayers by rate capping.
As to the formulae, I have often referred to the formula that sets the amount of money that local government is allocated for art galleries and museums. That is a good example of how stupid the present system is. I am sure the Minister will agree that if the system is based on GRE the basis must be right if it is to work. The basis for determining the amount for galleries and museums is the area of shop floors within the local authority. Therefore, a local authority with a large floor space in its shopping centre will get a bigger allocation for museums and art galleries even if it does not provide a service, whereas a local authority with a small shop floor area may provide a much better service but will not get the same allocation.
In the report there is a revised method for calculating indicator E7, which is a big factor in the GRE calculation for housing grant. I will not deal with it in detail because it covers two pages in the report and is extremely complicated. The Government have still got it wrong, because the base year of 1980–81 is crucial to the calculation. Local authorities may still be penalised because of what happened in 1980–81. That is wrong. My local authority has been heavily penalised for many years, to the detriment of the ratepayers. Many other local authorities are in a similar position. As a Member of Parliament, as leader of the council before I was elected to the House, and as chairman of the council's finance committee, I have met Ministers and civil servants, but none of them could justify the formula.
I hope that, in any further changes, the Government will recognise that different parts of the country cannot be judged on a standard base. We need a system that takes into account local needs and many other factors on a better basis than we have achieved so far—even with the present revision. Even with the latest supplementary report for 1984–85, local authorities have been penalised and the costs have had to be borne by rent and ratepayers because the Government's system has been wrongly based. If the foundation is wrong, the system cannot possibly work.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I shall not detain the House. I take great comfort in the Minister's remarks. We hope, pray and trust that the new system of grants for local authorities will not be as complicated and difficult to comprehend as the present system. I do not want to talk about the formulae set out in the document. On one occasion I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he was the only person in England to understand the system.
I wish to draw attention to the arrangements as they affect Derbyshire and its district councils. In 1984–85, the GRE for Derbyshire county council was £316,420,000. In 1985–86 it rose to £354,705,000 — an increase of about £38 million. Nearly all the districts in the county of Derbyshire have witnessed increases in GRE over that period. For Amber Valley the increase was £17,000, for Bolsover it was £200,000, for Chesterfield it was £1,137,000, for Derby it was £2,537,000; for Erewash, £259,000 and for High Peak, £94,000. However, in the same period north-east Derbyshire witnessed a reduction

of £67,000, south Derbyshire a reduction of £11,000 and Derbyshire Dales—the district to which I wish to refer in particular—a reduction of £111,000.
Derbyshire Dales district council has been a prudent and well-run council, yet it seems from all the figures and evidence that it is the Derbyshire council most penalised under the present system. Derbyshire Dales GRE assessment has been reduced by 4·9 per cent.—£150,000 — between 1980–81 and 1988–89. During the same period, all other Derbyshire district councils have had an increase in their GRE of between 0·03 and 58·3 per cent. During the same period, the county council's GRE has risen by 54 per cent.
I take the point made my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) about Cleveland, but at the moment Derbyshire county council levies the highest rate in the country at 262p, and we do not yet know what is in store for next year. Although Cleveland may be leading us, it will not have that pleasure—if pleasure it be—for very long.
The Audit Commission's cluster of authorities similar to Derbyshire Dales — there are 34 — shows that only three councils have lost GRE in that period. Derbyshire Dales leads the table at 4–9 per cent. My message to the Minister is that we do not like systems that seem continually to penalise good, prudent authorities while allowing spendthrift, wasteful authorities to get away with continuing to spend as though there were no tomorrow. Authorities that are prudent and look after their finances are penalised all the time.
I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to say much in response to me, but I ask him to shout a little more about the way in which we intend to change the system so that it becomes much more fair and so that the future levels of grant to councils, without a complicated formula, are more obvious to people—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hesitate to interrupt, but the debate is about the past. I hope that the hon. Member will not tempt the Minister into discussing the future.

Mr. McLoughlin: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about the past. We should draw lessons from the past to ensure that what has happened does not happen again in the future. What has happened in the past seems to have penalised authorities that have been prudent and that should have been able to reward their ratepayers. Instead, those ratepayers have had to bear the burden of the system.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have two general questions and propositions to put to the Minister and then I want to raise some Southwark-related matters arising directly out of the two reports.
First, I should like to confirm that by these measures the definitions of "relevant" and "total" expenditure are for the first time amended, as there is power to do under the Local Government Finance Act 1987, which was passed because of the discovery of errors in calculation. I understand that it is possible for the Government to take out transfers to special funds which give rise to a deficit on the rate fund revenue account and which are not in respect of specific liabilities, or transfers back to the rate


fund account of sums transferred — the "deficit financing" transfers. I did not hear the Minister address that matter.
This appears to be a retrospective change. The 1984–85 and the 1986–87 rate support grants were made on the basis of one set of terminology and definitions, and therefore calculation. This appears to be the first time that we have a retrospectively introduced redefinition which, clearly, in some cases is disadvantageous. What are the budgetary implications of the change?
Secondly, and more simply, when we debated the first supplementary report for 1986–87, the Government guaranteed that at least £500 million of grant would be recycled. However, the expenditure for 1986–87 is now seen to be lower than originally estimated. I understand, therefore, that the grant recycled is now between £400 million and £450 million. If that is right, it is at least £50 million below the undertaking. That means that there is less money around to be distributed to local authorities. I should like to be put right if I am wrong, but if I am right I should like confirmation that the original guarantee will be upheld and that we can have the £500 million through the grant recycling process.
I should now like to put a question to the Minister which has not arisen before in this debate and on which I admit ignorance, after trying to check the details through reports and figures. It has been put to me that the reports also deal with a correction of data errors in social services grant-related expenditure. Those revisions will be to the substantial detriment of a range of authorities. Newham loses £1·1 million; Wandsworth and Waltham Forest £1 million; Hammersmith and Fulham £700,000; and Kensington and Chelsea £400,000. The biggest losers of all are Lambeth, with £2 million, and my authority — Southwark—with £2·5 million.
I have heard nothing about that. I see nothing that refers to that specifically in the text accompanying the statistics in the reports, so perhaps the advice I have been given is incorrect. I should be happy to hear that it is. If it is not, however, Southwark—the area I know best—will lose £2·5 million because of a recalculation of social services grant-related expenditure, which would be a severe blow.
I want to discuss the figures for Southwark, in the knowledge that tomorrow we shall debate the rate limits under the relevant order—including one for Southwark. Southwark appears to have suffered considerably as a result of the supplementary reports and revisions in the grant-related expenditure assessment. I make a last minute plea to the Minister on the basis of the facts and figures. Southwark deserves to have its rate limit—as set out in tomorrow's order—revised if its expenditure limit is still not to be revised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the approval of reports of the past. I do not think it would be right for the House to anticipate a future debate.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that entirely, and I think I can satisfy you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by turning now to the outturn figures dealt with in the orders.
Southwark has now been rate-capped for four consecutive years. The figures for the outturn of the budget are as follows. The budget in the first two years

—1984–85 and 1985–86 — was £108·437 million. Then, with the ex-GLC services added in for 1986–87 and 1987–88, and again for the coming year, the budget has been fixed at £134 million. But the reports show that for 1983–84 there has been a loss on the final report of just over £2·5 million as a result of revisions. For the 1986–87 report, there is a loss of £3·035 million. Southwark will be liable to make cash payments for those losses if the reports are approved. They amount to more than £5 million for those two years alone. In three of the past four years—1983–84, 1984–85, and 1986–87—the loss has been more than £7 million.
I accept that, to some extent, there is budgetary provision for this. However, the losses result not from Southwark having acted outside budgetary restraints, but from the reduction in grant-related expenditure assessment as a result of factors that influenced all authorities, but bit Southwark particularly hard. If, as expected, another £4 million must be paid for the financial year 1985–86, there will be massive problems.
If I am right in thinking that one of the alterations is to the social services GRE, that is a specific area in which Southwark is desperately short. it is a known fact that social workers employed by Southwark but working in the Maudsley hospital had to take out an injunction to stop their transfer to fill gaps in one of the borough's area social services teams. The imposition by these orders of what appear to be substantive additional bills will make it impossible, with any further rate-cap limit as may be imposed tomorrow, plus the budgetary constraints on expenditure limits cumulatively over the last four years, for Southwark to meet its obligations.
Last year, on behalf of and with Tower Hamlets, I asked for an increase in its expenditure limits, and that was granted. I am not saying that happened entirely as a result of my request. Southwark asked for more, and was not granted it. The evidence shows that it should have been granted. The real screw on Southwark appears to be the additional sums which these reports require Southwark to pay. Are these figures right? I am happy tomorrow to work with the Minister's officials if this request cannot be dealt with now.
There is evidence that the burden of the formula and its application in these two years bites uniquely hard on Southwark, particularly on its key services. That may mean that the Government's calculations in relation to the need for Southwark in the coming year should be looked at again, even at this late stage. There is a precedent for figures being revised at a late stage, and parts of an order can be withdrawn, debated later and put back, as the Minister accepted in relation to one of the orders originally laid before the House. The figures in the report which are uniquely prejudiced against Southwark should be revised.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for an opportunity to ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to clarify one or two points in connection with the supplementary reports for 1984–85 and 1986–87. In general, I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), and I do not wish to take up time repeating those points.
Between 1984–85 and 1986–87, the grant-related expenditure for Norfolk county council has been increased from £232 million to £269 million, and total expenditure has increased from £217 million to £239 million. My


understanding of those figures is that in 1986–87, Norfolk county council spent £30 million below its grant-related expenditure, which was much lower in relation to GRE than in 1984–85. In spite of that, the grant payable to Norfolk county council went down. Therefore, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will explain why, if one spends below one's GRE, one is penalised.
I then looked at the figures for Broadland district council, and found the same situation. Its GRE has been reduced from £3·98 million to £3·9 million, rounding the figure down significantly. Total expenditure went down from £2·96 million to £2·75 million, and once again, the amount by which the council was below GRE was better in 1986–87 than it was in 1984–85, but again, the grant payable was reduced.
I hope that I am being helpful here, because I know that Ministers attack this rate support grant system, say that it is unacceptable, and that they want to get rid of it as soon as possible. I hope that they will help me by explaining those discrepancies.
For Norwich, the GRE figure between 1984–85 and 1986–87 increased from £7·8 million to £9·6 million, yet for Broadland district council the GRE decreased from £3·983 million to £3·895 million. I shall not speak at great length on that, although I could. Could the Minister address that particular discrepancy and explain it to me so that I can explain that extraordinary difference in treatment between Norwich and the lower spending shire district to my constituents in Norfolk?
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West in his strictures on the treatment of low-spending councils, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will explain those figures.

1 am

Mr. Barry Field: I should like to end this tortuous debate on a happy note by placing on record on behalf of the people of the Isle of Wight our thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and his advisers for their solution to the rating of Crown property. It would have caused considerable difficulty if we had to find the arrears asked of us which go back for many years, some of which are referred to in these supplementary reports.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): We have had an interesting debate which hon. Members have been listening to with rapt attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) raised many issues which are not new to me because I had the privilege of visiting Langbaurgh last year and I met a recent deputation from the council to explain the present position and the limited way in which the Government could assist. After the last deputation, I wrote to my hon. Friend and told the council that I understood its anxiety and would be happy to meet it again this spring before we start on next year's settlement.
I share my hon. Friend's anxiety that the ratepayers of Langbaurgh are faced with a proposed rate increase of 30p by Cleveland county council. Such an increase can only be an unnecessary burden on them. My hon. Friend is particularly concerned about the definitions on density. The density factor measurements are based on definitions set out by the ordnance survey and applied to all authorities. The area of an authority covers all land,

mountains, towns and derelict land. This measure is reasonable for the purposes for which it is used within the grant system. As I told my hon. Friend when he brought the deputation, we are looking for a much simpler grant system under new arrangements, but that will not be in place until 1990. I am sure he will be pleased to know that as a result of the supplementary reports, Langbaurgh benefits to the tune of £670,000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin thought that Derbyshire county council was receiving beneficial treatment at the expense of Derbyshire Dales. The dales under these supplementary reports benefit to the extent of £86,000 while the county council loses to the extent of £2·896 million. I am sure that my hon. Friend thinks that that illustrates the justice of the situation. Once again my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the gross extravagance of Derbyshire county council and the relative prudence of the Conservative district councils.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) raised the vexed issue of E7. I believe that it is too late to explain exactly how E7 is calculated, but the hon. Gentleman seems to have as good an understanding of it as most people. As a result of the supplementary reports that we are discussing tonight, Burnley benefits by £71,000.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) discussed a social services error, but I should point out that that error was contained in the supplementary report for 1983–84. Southwark gains more than £10 million from the reports under consideration and that for 1986–87 gives the authority £12·4 million. Those factors have been taken into account in the Secretary of State's proposals for the rate limit. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's figures are right, as they relate only to grant changes as a result of GRE changes. In 1986–87 Southwark gained £13 million of grant as a result of changes in its total expenditure and that gives the overall gain of £10 million from the two reports.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about recycling. It is always made clear that the guarantee of a certain amount of recycled grant would apply only to the first supplementary report. When there were subsequent supplementary reports it was inevitable that there might be a different outcome. That was no surprise to the local authorities concerned. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment made it perfectly clear in a letter to the local authority associations that there was no intention of increasing block grant further in subsequent supplementary reports.

Mr. Simon Hughes: What about the redefinition of two terms under the Local Government Finance Act 1987?

Mr. Chope: In the welter of detail before me, I do not have an answer for the hon. Gentleman, but I will write to him about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadlands—

Mr. Patrick Thompson: It is important for my constituents to realise that I cover both Norwich city and Broadlands and that, therefore, my constituency is Norwich, North.

Mr. Chope: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). He has frequently come to see me with councillors from Broadlands, so I mistook his constituency. In visits and in correspondence


my hon. Friend has tried to explain how Broadlands suffers under the present system. Broadlands is a low-spending, prudent local authority and it has much lower rates than Norwich. If my recollection is correct, I believe that this coming year the district rate in Broadlands will be about half that of Norwich. That reflects the different spending policies of those councils. Under the existing system, it is inevitable that when a council increases expenditure it forfeits grant. That applies to Broadlands and to Norwich.
We are introducing a new grant system that will be much clearer and simpler. Certainly it will be helpful in increasing accountability in local government.
I said that I would write to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but perhaps it would be easier if I told him that none of the specifications are in a strict sense retrospective, as they apply only to supplementary reports made after the specifications have been made. In the light of new information, it is normal practice to make further supplementary reports for a financial year well after that year has passed. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
I hope that the House will approve the supplementary reports.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 4) 1984–85 (House of Commons Paper No. 253), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report (England) (No. 3) 1986–87 (House of Commons Paper No. 254), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Patent Office (Relocation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to raise at this late hour the proposed relocation of the Patent Office from London to south Wales, but in doing so I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I welcome to the Treasury Bench at this uncivilised hour, that the present Government's policy in seeking to challenge perceived norms and accepted wisdom is one that I strongly applaud. It is right that no idea or arrangement, no matter how well-established, should go unexamined or unquestioned.
The decision in recent years to consider the relocation of Government departmental offices to regions outside London is one that I welcome, and I hope that when future relocations are considered, the marvellous facilities offered in my constituency of Macclesfield will not go unnoticed by my hon. Friend, or for that matter, the excellent opportunities provided by the north-west region as a whole.
However, I am not arguing now for the relocation of the Patent Office from its present home in central London to my constituency or the north-west. Indeed, I hope to convince my hon. Friend that he should reconsider what can only be described as a hasty, if well-intentioned, decision to move the home of the Patent Office to Newport in south Wales.
It is not that I have anything at all against Wales or the people of that excellent Principality. I am in favour, as I said, of the dispersal of Government offices from London and the south-east. The reason why I am arguing against the move to south Wales is simply that the proper home for the Patent Office is in London. During the whole of the period of more than 100 years that a modern patent system has been in existence, the Patent Office has been located in the Chancery lane area of central London. That is almost certainly because the function of the office is to grant rights — patents, trade marks and registered designs—which are enforceable at law. It is logical to locate the office close to the High Court, the Inns of Court and specialist counsel, solicitors and patent agents who are concerned with obtaining — and, I remind the House, enforcing—such rights.
The Patent Office currently comprises approximately 1,100 members of staff, headed by the Comptroller-General. Two thirds are administrative, clerical and support staff, while the remainder are highly qualified technical examiners. A patent application is accepted and granted only after a technical evaluation and search carried out by one of the examiners to determine whether the application is directed to novel and inventive subject matter. To perform that important function, an examiner must have a thorough grasp of the area of technology with which the application is concerned.
Taken as a whole, the examining corps is highly qualified and greatly experienced across a range of disciplines covering the full technical spectrum and patent law. In short, they are a highly valuable and specialised asset to our country, in enabling us to make the best use of that great British flair for invention and entrepreneurship.
As my hon. Friend knows, the White Paper published just two years ago on the subject of intellectual property and innovation says:
a nation such as the United Kingdom relies heavily on getting value from its intellectual property. We have a limited raw material base and a small home market, but we have a good education system, a tradition of world-leading inventions and of involvement in international trade.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I shall not give way. I have much to say in a short time.
The White Paper continues:
The ability to claim ownership of ideas is a vital step in securing a profit from them.
The same White Paper argued that the Patent Office should be made a statutory non-departmental body, to make it more responsive to the needs of innovators, free it from the traditional Civil Service framework, and ensure that it should be self-supporting from fees, and free to finance investment programmes.
I make these remarks about the White Paper to remind the House, which can all too often become too detached from such things, of the real practical value of the Patent Office to British industry and, in particular, to the small company or self-employed individual from whose invention a whole industry could ultimately grow. I make these remarks also to remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the ideas contained in the White Paper. It appears that the excellent proposals have now been shelved. I urge him once again to turn his attention to these matters, albeit that they are now not the main subject of debate.
What is of specific concern is the proposed relocation of the office to south Wales and the impact that that move could have on British inventors.
First, I shall comment briefly on the rather casual manner in which the decision was announced. The first that many of my contacts in industry and in the patent world knew of the matter was a passing reference in a speech by the Comptroller-General of Patents at the annual dinner of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents on 30 October last — although, with all respect to my hon. Friend, I understand that reference was also made to the decision in another place on that very day. I stress that the decision was announced. It was put forward not for discussion or consultation with those concerned, but as a fait accompli.
At no time prior to the somewhat informal announcement did there appear to have been any consultation with the professional organisations that will be most affected — the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and the Institute of Trade Mark Agents. Nor had there been any consultation with individual users of the patent and trade mark system or with organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry or the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation, which represent industrial users of the systems.
Concern about the total lack of consultation was registered with my hon. Friend in a letter from the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation on 3 February. The CBI wrote earlier to the Comptroller-General, endorsing the federation's concern at the decision, and the lack of consultation that went before it.
That absence of consultation is of all the more concern, bearing in mind that the standing advisory committees on patents and trade marks have been in existence for some

years. Surely a proposal of this kind is clearly a natural candidate for consideration by such committees. Therefore, I urge not the abandonment of the idea of relocation—as I said, all new ideas deserve consideration—but, rather, that such consideration should be comprehensive and constructive, and should include full consultation.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to my constituency, when I am not allowed to speak, and refer to a matter that has nothing to do with his constituency?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It is a matter that relates to the normal courtesies of the House. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Winterton: Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to refer the detail of the decision to the standing advisory committee before it is ultimately implemented.
Secondly, the proposal seems to have arisen out of a report that was conducted by Price Waterhouse, a firm of considerable reputation but with no experience of patents. It is my suspicion, and certainly that of many concerned individuals and organisations who have contacted me about the matter, that the decision to move to south Wales arose simply because empty facilities exist there, due to the decision of another Government Department not to relocate in that area, as had originally been planned.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton: I have already announced that I shall not give way. Opposition Members did not approach me before the debate to seek my permission to intervene.
Therefore, if my suspicion is true, such consideration is not the right basis upon which the Government should make commercial or policy decisions. The best interests of the British economy should be the overriding factor in a matter such as this.
Thirdly, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster argued that the basic reason for the relocation was to limit the anticipated increase in Government fees which would need to be charged to users if the office were retained in London, with high accommodation costs and a prospective fall in patent registrations.
I challenge that argument. The latest financial statement concerning the position of the Patent Office appears as an appendix to the annual report of the Comptroller-General. The report for 1986 clearly shows that the total accommodation costs for the fee-earning services of the Patent Office amounted to only 18 per cent. of the total expenditure of the office and that receipts over expenditure amounted to almost £4 million—that is to say, there was a profit of £4 million. Even if accommodation costs were to treble, for example, in the future, they could be met within an overall increase of fees of less than 40 per cent. in 1986 terms.
The fees would still be low compared to those in other European countries. More particularly, it should be recognised that the users of the Patent Office's services almost invariably use professional assistance and that Government fees represent a relatively small proportion of the costs incurred. Consequently, it is expected that the increase in professional fees and ancillary costs to


applicants for patents which will result directly from the move out of London could substantially offset any possible savings in Government fees.
Fourthly, I urge my hon. Friend to consider once again the impact of the proposed move on the competence of the office to handle patent applications. As I said earlier, that depends crucially on the retention of the corps of technical examiners and any move that results in a diminishing of that corps through reticence to move to that most desirable area of south Wales would be detrimental to the service offered to British industry.
From the letter that my hon. Friend wrote to the Trade Marks Patents and Designs Federation on 20 December last, it is clear that the Government are not only expecting, but hoping for, a reduction in this corps, since he says:
Central London locations not only mean high rental but also significantly increased staff costs. By relocation away from London substantial savings are possible.
In short, the Government would save money by employing local people in Wales at lower rates, but those people would clearly not have the experience or expertise of the long-serving London personnel. Therefore, that would be a false economy and could lead to a further fall in the number of patent applications because of a lack of confidence, a fall in standards and the resultant inability to enforce patents granted and registered. One reason why we have such a fine reputation in this country is because we can enforce the patents that have been granted and registered.
I should also put on record at this stage the alarm expressed by those who would be affected by the knowledge that the Government are reported to have inquired whether the European Patent Office could handle the examination of United Kingdom patent applications in apparent ignorance of the fact that that would have resulted in a sevenfold increase in fees for patent applications—a level of fees which would effectively rule out many smaller companies from taking out patents. That is strangely inconsistent with the concern that my hon. Friend and his Department have expressed for fee increases simultaneously used to justify the Patent Office move to south Wales.
I seek an assurance from my hon. Friend this evening that that approach will not be pursued now that the European Patent Office has refused to handle the business because of its own backlog of work. The British Patent Office is currently dealing with over 31,000 applications each year. Surely that is a sign of a healthy and entrepreneurial economy, and that the Patent Office is providing a valuable service, at its present location, to British industry.
I want to draw the attention of the House to one final area. I understand that the United Kingdom is currently asking the EEC to locate the Community Trade Marks Office in London. The Government's proposal to move the Patent Office to south Wales is likely to be regarded in Europe as a reflection of a lack of interest in the United Kingdom about intellectual property, and much will be made of that by the Spanish, Dutch and Germans who are the other prime contenders for the location of the Community Trade Marks Office. Such a move by the Patent Office could effectively sabotage the bid for the Community Trade Marks Office.
Considerable advantages could flow from the location of the CTMO alongside the Patent Office in London. It would provide close liason and a pool of professional advisers both within and independent of the offices. The proposal to move the Patent Office out of London should be reviewed immediately and steps should be taken quickly to reassure industry of the Government's commitment to support intellectual property rights and its innovative ability, which should rightly be seen as the basis for the continued regeneration of United Kingdom industry.
A Patent Office providing industrial property services at senior level is surely of vital importance to industry and should be accessible from all parts of the country. I believe that that can be ensured only by locating the head office —albeit a residuary head office—in the capital city to which inevitably the most efficient communications are provided.
In conclusion, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister most sincerely for receiving me and representatives of those concerned — Mr. Ralph Walter of the CBI, an ex-employee of Unilever, Mr. Tony Gibson the president of the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation, Mr. David Votier, president of the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and Mr. David Tatham, also of the Trade Marks, Patents and Design Federation, a senior executive of ICI—in his office at the Department of Trade and Industry on Monday afternoon. We had a full and frank exchange of views and I know that those who accompanied me appreciated my hon. Friend's understanding of the problems and the sympathetic hearing that he gave us.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for the manner in which he has pursued his arguments tonight and on previous occasions. I respect his sincerity and strength of feeling on this issue. In the course of my observations, I will try to deal with the very important points that he has raised.
I am grateful for the opportunity presented by the debate to explain more fully the reasons behind our proposal to relocate the Patent Office in south Wales, and — I am bound to say — to rebut some of the misunderstandings that have appeared in the press recently about our plans for the Patent Office.
To begin with, it is necessary to step back and take stock of the changes that are occurring in this area. This country and a number of other European states joined together in 1977 to establish the European Patent Office. Under the system administered by that office, a company seeking broad protection for its inventions may file a single patent application in Europe as an alternative to going to each of the member states individually. This system is very successful and the European Patent Office is now the major office in Europe. Our national office has correspondingly declined over the same period. Input is down 30 per cent. over the past five years and looks set to decline by a similar amount over the next five years. The European system is particularly attractive to large companies, with the result that applicants to the United Kingdom Patent Office are increasingly drawn from small and medium-sized enterprises.
On the other hand, the work of the trade marks registry of the Patent Office is increasing by leaps and bounds


following an amendment to the trade marks legislation in 1986 permitting service industries to register their marks and logos. As a result, trade mark applicants face long delays as the registry seeks to obtain sufficient staff and train them in the necessary skills.
The patents branch also faces similar problems in obtaining and retaining staff in central London, and both branches attract frequent complaints from the professions about the level of service provided. It is worth bearing in mind that, in the general service grades, the staff turnover in the Patent Office is over five times what it is in the Companies Registration Office and the Business Statistics Office in south Wales.
I shall come to the questions of the comparative labour and salary costs, but the accommodation costs in central London are spiralling upwards and in 1988 are expected to exceed £8 million, an amount borne on the patent side by fewer and fewer applicants as the input declines. It might be thought that, as the input declines and the staff with it, the office will need less space. But that is not the whole story. The patent search files consist of over 4 million documents and grow each year, so that the office's requirements for space cannot simply be adjusted in line with input. Overheads are set to climb steeply if the office remains in London.
It is reasonable to ask ourselves whether the situation should be allowed to continue unchecked, or whether we should take positive steps to put the office on a sounder basis so that it can provide the continuity of services that its customers rightly expect, at prices they can reasonably afford. The answer is plain. We would be failing in our duty to industry and commerce if the situation was allowed to drift out of control.
The first question that must be asked is: would it be cheaper to transfer all the patent work to the European Patent Office? It is clear that the European Patent Office has not the capacity to take on extra work from the United Kingdom Patent Office. Even if it had, the charges would be higher than the cost of doing the work in our own office. Moving the office to cheaper accommodation in south Wales would move the costs of our own operations out of the range of the European Patent Office. There are therefore no plans to transfer functions of the United Kingdom Patent Office to the European Patent Office. I would like to underline that statement, because recent press reports suggesting the contrary have caused some anxiety to the staff of the office.
Nor would I like to give the impression by anything I have said that the Patent Office is declining at such a rate that it is about to disappear through lack of customers. We would not be taking so much trouble thinking about the future of the office if that were the case. Even at its lower level of activity, the office is still a major division of the Department of Trade and Industry. Currently, it receives over 30,000 patent applications a year, over 30,000 applications to register trade and service marks and over 8,000 applications to register designs.
If the office were moved to south Wales, accommodation charges would fall from £8 million per annum to under £3 million. Staff costs were, I noted, the subject of a sedentary intervention. A further £1·5 million would be saved in London weighting, which would be a genuine saving. But the salary grants are the same, and the salaries paid, London weighting excepted, would be, grade for grade, the same in south Wales as in London.
In the context of a budget of £35 million, those figures cannot be ignored. South Wales is preferred, because the Department of Trade and Industry already has two large establishments in the Cardiff-Newport area, and it makes operational sense to place the Patent Office in the same region. The case for decentralising the office looks overwhelming.
While officials examine the implications of a move, talks have already started with the professions to consider what needs to be done to ensure that users would not be inconvenienced by a move away from London. I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about that. A major part of the patent and trade mark profession is located in London within easy reach of the Patent Office in High Holborn. Plainly, its costs could rise considerably if its members had to spend their time travelling backwards and forwards between London and Wales to file their applications, or attend hearings. Likewise, members of the patents bar could be seriously disadvantaged if their time was divided between the Patents Court in London and the comptroller's court in Wales. Clearly, it would defeat the whole purpose of a move if the costs of the Patent Office were reduced at the expense of the professions, because at the end of the day it is the users who bear the costs of both.
In order to maintain a convenient service to users, the Patent Office plans to retain an office in London employing 60 to 70 people who would receive patent, trade mark and design business. This office would have on-line computer links with the relocated main office to give access to register information and would provide facilities so that ex-parte and inter-parte proceedings could be conducted in London.
We have previously debated the importance of the new data highways, the new broadband networks and telecommunications links. This is a classic case of taking advantage of such technology.
Some talks took place on 5 February with the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, the Institute of Trade Mark Agents and the Trade Mark, Patent and Design Federation to ensure that the necessary facilities are available in London for the efficient conduct of their business should the proposd move take place. We would of course need to ensure that sufficient numbers of skilled staff needed for the proper continuity of services transfer with the office. Staff have been informed about the possibilities under consideration, and more detailed talks with staff representatives will begin in the near future. It is also important to appreciate that a move of an important office like the Patent Office would provide valuable new job opportunities in south Wales. A move would create at least 500 jobs locally.
Some agents have asked where such a decision would leave our bid to host the Community Trade Marks Office in London. The issues of the location of the national Patent Office and the Community Trade Marks Office are unconnected. The Community institution will not depend in any way on the United Kingdom Patent Office. I am determined that the United Kingdom bid stands in its own right and on its own independent merits. Our bid for the Community Trade Marks Office has always depended upon the advantages of London itself, its links with the other Community states, the United States of America, Japan and other countries, and on the wealth of trade mark expertise available. This is still the case and our claim


to that office is still unrivalled on any objective basis. We shall press strongly on the Commission and others those objective critera.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the need for consultation and has expressed the view that more consultation is necessary before any proposal to relocate the Patent Office out of central London is entertained. I hope he is aware that I am sensitive to his comments not just in this debate but on previous occasions. Consultation with users about the future operation of the Patent Office is necessary. However, the overall management of the Civil Service, of which the Patent Office is a part, is a matter for the Government. We have a manifesto commitment to improve public services, to make them more effective and to reduce their costs. It is for Government to be satisfied that these goals will be achieved. For the Patent Office, the financial savings to be derived and the operational improvements that can be attained by a move to south Wales make the case conclusive.
Having made a decision on financial and operational grounds, I readily agree with my hon. Friend that there is thus a need for consultation about its implementation. We shall carefully examine the record of this debate to pick up the sensitivities about which my hon. Friend feels

consultation is in order. As I have said, this process of consultation has already begun. The Comptroller-General has offered further meetings to the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, the Trade Mark Patents and Designs Federation and the Institute of Trade Mark Agents to discuss the sort of services that they would like to see provided by the London office and the links that that office might have with the main office in south Wales. That is a very important form of consultation, but I cannot accept that Government should have consulted on the basic question of how to manage and locate the Patent Office. This is an issue of central Civil Service management and it is an issue for Government.
A transfer will enable the Patent Office to provide a better service through the greater availability and continuity of staff, a cheaper service for the benefit particularly of small and medium-sized enterprises, and a more secure future away from the high costs of London.

Mr. Winterton: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to consider the appointment of the head office in London—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes to Two o'clock.